I hope they keep getting hit, too. What Ciprofloxacin does to people made everyone stop making it, but not Bayer
Then perish.
Why exactly would you want to stop all production of ciprofloxacin (also I can find multiple companies still producing it)?
Also on the WHO essential medicines list... curious as to the reasoning here.
[quote]
Bayer’s $66 billion acquisition of Monsanto was completed only last
June after both the EU and the USA approved the takeover deal.[/quote]
That was a bad deal lol.
Meh, Monsanto will probably win on appeal (and they should). Juries don't make good scientists. Glyophosphate doesn't cause cancer.
As much as I hate Monsanto and bathe in the schadenfreude of them having to pay $290mil in damages...
I hate the erosion and distortion of the justice system more.
Monsanto has done countless terrible things that, if not downright crimes, are at least criminal, and I would jump for joy if they were forced to pay for even half of them. But the Roundup / glyophosphate case is not one of those things.
The ruling should be appealed and overturned, and Monsanto shouldn't have to pay a dime, for this one particular case.
Yeah, if you're going to sue them/charge them, get them for something they've actually done that's illegal.
Yea! Fuck this pharmaceutical company for having a subsidiary that produces a effective pesticide thats been proven not to cause cancer.
I too hope that justice systems around the world continue to not accept reality, refuse to acknowledge factual arguments, and continue to hand out rulings based on emotion.
Fuck yea man! Lets keep that system broken!
Which is virtually impossible to do because of Monsanto's absolutely massive legal machine and the general public's inability to care for legitimate issues.
Large, essentially criminal organizations that break the law on a regular basis are occasionally caught or reprimanded this way via a small and dubious case. It's a peculiar quirk of the justice system wherein a known and established lawbreaker can only realistically get their comeuppance by essentially cheating a little. As much as it sucks that the legal system has to be bent somewhat to achieve this, I personally believe that Monsanto getting a well-deserved dent in their reputation and losing some money is a better alternative to respecting the absolute integrity of a system that never had one to begin with and allow them to go on unpunished for a slew of things they have managed to weasel their way out of dealing with on a long basis.
As for Glyphosate itself. While the product is likely not a carcinogen as was initially thought, there are others aspects to the compound which make it a bad pick in the long term and are equal reasons to see its use stop. To cite two problems with it that, at least to me, are massive red flags that its use should stop at once, it is massively toxic to aquatic life and its effectiveness has declined over the years since some plants have become naturally resistant to it; and knowing how the agricultural world tends to handle pesticide and herbicide, it being less effective as a result of naturally occurring resistance would lead to more of it being used to compensate, leading to more of it seeping into the water and aquatic life being further damaged.
It's not likely to be a very good long-term choice for herbicides simply because of those two aspects and I would much rather see its use stop altogether through some random unverified case of a dude getting cancer than see it continue being used until we realized twenty years down the line that it was actually thoroughly fucking up the already precarious aquatic ecosystem.
I'm surprised that stocks dropped so much over this though. It's likely that the decision will be repealed and unless I'm wrong (very likely) then Monsanto is footing the bill if it doesn't get repealed, not Bayer. And it's not like Monsanto's reputation has gotten worse. This feels like the stock market being the stock market.
Monsanto became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer earlier this year. There is always some downside risk with these kinda things but a 10% drop seems like an overreaction so yeah, stock market being the stock market is about right.
Who's science? that's been the goto argument for decades, put out a public defense that is intentionally biased and keep the real science behind closed doors.
But surely they should wait before that real science comes out before making the ruling. What's the point of a court if you're going to just assume someone is lying?
Fluoroquinolones are one of the cornerstones of modern antibiotic treatments, why the hell would you want everyone to stop making and using them?
Says the man in a thread about Monsanto losing a cut and dried court case they should have won.
Every pesticide on earth is toxic to fish and aquatic life. Thats not because of the formulation of pesticides, its because of a fish's biology.
Roundup has no residual post application, so theres never run off once its dried. Easiest solution is to not farm near bodies of water, as most farmers do not already.
P dumb complaint if I'm honest
290 million for Bayer is less than spare change
Bayer has their studies that say its safe, the prosecution has their own studies that say its not.
Then it just boils down to whether a jury can be technically literate enough to make a ruling.
Look its a tactic that has worked in spades, it kept tobacco safe for decades, has kept certain opioids on the market, and is actively used by the oil industry to confuse people on a myriad of issues. Ya if they have an internal study that concludes something else its up to the discovery process to find it but its not hard to bury stuff.
The thing is, if this is upheld, there are many other similar lawsuits waiting. That 290 million will spiral into billions.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
