Should Roundup users really have the right to sue?

The first research suggesting glyphosate was dangerous emerged nearly 15 years ago. Monsanto challenged the results merely because those results challenged their profit margin. They went to great lengths to challenge the research, and discredit the researchers, even stalking and threatening scientists who refused to retract or redact their reports. In the end, they were permitted to continue using glyphosate because they lobbied lawmakers, not because their pseudoscience held any water.
However, given that evidence has been around nearly 15 years, and widely available for at least a decade, do users still have a right to sue? Isn't this like a modern smoker trying to sue big tobacco even though health warnings about tobacco use have been around for decades? You made a choice contrary to reputable scientific and/or medical research. Shouldn't you have to live with the consequences of that choice?

0|0
05

Recommended Questions

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 0

Be the first girl to share an opinion
and earn 1 more Xper point!

What Guys Said 5

  • Not really. You are using a chemical that instantly kills any vegetation it touches. If you do not use and handle it properly and take precautions, you have no one to blame but yourself. This is just another finger pointing and, everyone else's fault, bullshit lawsuit for free money.

    0|0
    0|1
    • 2d

      That's not true at all. Many of the lawsuits aren't from users, but neighbors of users. Groundwater contamination and crop dusting aerial overspread have resulted in health issues for people smart enough to not use. The evidence is clear and overwhelming that glyphosate is dangerous. Not only did Monsanto not do anything to warn users of the dangers, they invested billions in a PR and legal campaign to suppress the evidence. Do the research. Your response has nothing to do with my question by context.

    • 2d

      My point is that people seem to think they can sue for anything just because. I'm not a monster and if you got cancer directly from someone misusing a product you were told was safe, then you certainly have a case. If they can prove that their specific cancer conditions was directly cause from glyphosate, then all the power to them.

  • Show me a man made chemical that isn't dangerous. Pretty well all chemicals are harmful, and all people who use them should be aware of this.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I think those who have developed the cancers that have been linked to Roundup (glyphosate) should still be permitted to sue and have their claims heard in court. It's true that concerns about glyphosate's carcinogenicity go back many years. But it's also true that Monsanto has tried everything to deny those concerns. And now that the World Health Organization (WHO) has listed glyphosate as a carcinogen, and with this product still on the market, then I think Monsanto should be held responsible if a jury finds that they were negligent or in bad faith when it came to accurate disclosures to the public about the risks of their product. And already there have been very large monetary awards in favor of plaintiffs who have sued Monsanto. I believe in letting people have their day in court, and holding corporations responsible.

    0|1
    0|0
  • No. There is no evidence that roundup causes cancer in humans in the exposed quantities.

    The lung cancer & smoking analogy isn't valid. Lung cancer is extremely correlated with smoking. It isn't a matter of whether a smoker will get lung cancer, it is a matter of whether he dies of something else before he does. If you are not exposed to cigarette smoke, coal dust, or asbestos, the chances of getting lung cancer is remote.

    In order for someone to sue over roundup, he should have to prove that no other means of getting cancer could have caused it. That isn't happening.

    0|0
    0|0
    • 4h

      You are mistaken. The first research showing that glyphosate is dangerous emerged over a decade ago. Your choice to ignore that doesn't invalidate that. The dozens of class-action lawsuits currently unfolding all over the US is further evidence you might enjoy ignoring. Roundup is dangerous, both science and the law now recognize that. Either check your facts or get over it, because your denial is nothing more than a sign of ignorance, willful or otherwise.

  • Monsanto should be shut down

    0|1
    0|0
    • 2d

      I agree, but this question isn't about Monsanto's choices. It's about their customer's choices, in the face of reputable scientific research.

    • Show All
    • 2d

      That's absolutely true. I deeply wish it weren't. The whole world would be a better place if more people valued education and information. Of course, the powers that be have a hand in that too.

    • 2d

      Indeed they do. Money talks

Recommended myTakes

Loading...