Thread: Spraying Poison

There's hope yet.

Fuck Monsanto and their ilk.

...let us also suggest fornication for the corrupt bureaucrats at the Min of Agriculture and the company executives that import these dangerous poisons and distribute them for general use...

If someone leaves some Paraquat in a bottle in a shed somewhere and someone else drinks some, that person dies. There is no antidote.

Which outfit was the maker of Agent Orange?

...there are probably a number of shed-based liquids that would produce the same result...including lao khao...

Originally Posted by tomcat

the first case to go to trial

More to come...an avalanche if the concept of precedent law works.

Originally Posted by HuangLao

There's hope yet.

Fuck Monsanto and their ilk.

100% agree.

Originally Posted by tomcat

...let us also suggest fornication for the corrupt bureaucrats at the Min of Agriculture and the company executives that import these dangerous poisons and distribute them for general use...

Yep.
A thousand plagues destined for all.

F[QUOTE=tomcat;3807607]The local Ministry of Agriculture allows the use of Paraquat and Roundup after a committee composed of industry reps and bureaucrats says there is no scientific evidence these pesticides are harmful to humans...a US court disagrees:
[/QUOTE

Originally Posted by tomcat

Fvck the corrupt bureaucrats at the Min of Agriculture and the company executives that import these dangerous poisons and distribute them for general use

FTFY. Yes, your point is not lost. It's a local point, though, in the bigger picture of how Monsanto is a corrupt and deadly purveyor of poison, with all the corrupt and obscene things it practices.

Who drinks from bottles they find in a shed

Originally Posted by Maanaam

It's a local point, though

...and no less important for being local...Thais harming Thais for personal benefit is a darker aspect of "Thainess"...

Originally Posted by uncle junior

Who drinks from bottles they find in a shed

...easy to confuse the lao khao shelf with the paraquat shelf...

Originally Posted by uncle junior

Who drinks from bottles they find in a shed

Possibly children.

...even more outrageous results concerning Roundup:

Patients: Roundup gave us cancer as EPA official helped the company

Story by Holly Yan, CNN
Photographs by John Francis Peters for CNN
Updated 3:06 PM ET, Tue May 16, 2017

(CNN)Christine Sheppard fantasizes about her life before cancer. Before she had to take painkillers "all the time." Before she had to seriously worry about when she might die.

"I found out something was wrong because my right leg swelled up enormously," Sheppard said. "They did an ultrasound and found I was completely full of these lymph nodes. It was stage IV large-cell lymphoma."
Grueling chemotherapy treatments have started robbing her of mobility. "It's a strange nerve thing," she said. "I don't always know where my feet are. I have to look down to see where they are."
And the symptoms "will be progressively worse. There's no cure. Eventually, I will probably end up fairly immobilized."

Christine Sheppard said she has to take pills every four hours to avoid "hopping and screaming" in pain.

For 12 years, Sheppard had no idea what might have caused her non-Hodgkin's lymphoma -- until a group of cancer researchers reported (PDF) that glyphosate, the key ingredient in the popular weed killer Roundup, is "probably carcinogenic to humans" (PDF).
That's the same herbicide Sheppard said she sprayed on her coffee farm in Hawaii for five years.
"I was incensed," said Sheppard, 67. "We had no idea."

Sheppard is one of more than 800 cancer patients suing Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, claiming the company failed to warn consumers about the risk of cancer associated with Roundup products.
Monsanto says there's no proof that glyphosate is carcinogenic. In fact, it cites a report by the Environmental Protection Agency's Cancer Assessment Review Committee that saidglyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" (PDF).
But the former chairman of that committee offered to stop an independent review on whether glyphosate could cause cancer, according to a plaintffs' motion to compel his deposition. And that has left Sheppard even more incensed.

Health agency: Glyphosate is 'probably carcinogenic'

The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancercaused a stir in March 2015 when it said glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans" (PDF), meaning it can lead to cancer.
"For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma," the report states.
"The evidence in humans is from studies of exposures, mostly agricultural, in the USA, Canada, and Sweden published since 2001. In addition, there is convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals."

That report spurred hundreds of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients to sue Monsanto.

Sheppard said her right leg "swelled up enormously," to the astonishment of her doctor.

Timothy Litzenburg's law firm represents more than 500 of them. He said most of the patients didn't know about a possible link between Roundup and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma until the report came out.

"It would not surprise me in the least if there are 2,000 to 3,000 cases by the end of the year," Litzenburg said. "This is the most-used herbicide in the world ... from the largest farm operations to backyard gardens. It's ubiquitous."

We are suing because our clients got cancer from Roundup.
Plaintiffs' attorney Timothy Litzenburg

But many other companies also sell products containing glyphosate. Why aren't they targeted in these lawsuits?
"This is an oversimplistic answer, but Monsanto invented/discovered it, they held the patent for many years, they are the EPA registrant for glyphosate, and they continue to dominate the market," the attorney said.
"Furthermore, we are not alleging that our clients got cancer from glyphosate alone. We are suing because our clients got cancer from Roundup. ... Roundup contains animal fats and other ingredients that increase the carcinogenicity of the glyphosate."

Litzenburg claims "glyphosate alone is carcinogenic, but the addition of a surfactant has a 'synergistic' effect." Monsanto says more than 800 studies have shown glyphosate's safety.

Monsanto spokeswoman Charla Lord flatly denied those accusations.
"Glyphosate-based herbicides, including Roundup-brand formulated products with surfactants, all have a long history of safe use and do not pose any unreasonable risk to human health when used according to label directions," Lord said.
"The safety of each labeled use of a pesticide formulation must be evaluated and approved by regulatory authorities before it is authorized for sale."
Sheppard said she knows skeptics will say she can't prove that her cancer came from using Roundup. But she said the hundreds of plaintiffs with similar stories -- combined with the report -- show "such strong circumstantial evidence that the total adds up."

Regulatory authorities in the United States, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Australia have publicly reaffirmed that glyphosate does not cause cancer.
Charla Lord, Monsanto spokeswoman

But Monsanto said there are more than 800 studies demonstrating glyphosate's safety, including studies conducted internationally.

"In fact, since IARC classified glyphosate, regulatory authorities in the United States, Europe, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Australia have publicly reaffirmed that glyphosate does not cause cancer," Lord said.
For example, the European Chemicals Agency said last month that glyphosate is "not classified as a carcinogen."
Monsanto stressed that the International Agency for Research on Cancer report does not establish a link between glyphosate and an increase in cancer.
Scott Partridge, Monsanto's vice president of global strategy, said plaintiffs' attorneys "are attempting to tie the IARC classification to individual cases of cancer, and they have been running advertisements to recruit plaintiffs. These lawsuits have no merit."
But recently unsealed court documents appear to show Monsanto mounting its effort to discredit the IARC report before it was even released.
Company executive suggests 'ghostwrite'

A month before the IARC report came out in 2015, Monsanto executive William F. Heydens sent an internal email to company toxicologist Donna Farmer with the subject line "RE: IARC planning," according to court documents. In that email, he suggested ghostwriting parts of an "overall plausibility paper" to save money.

These allegations are false. Monsanto scientists did not ghostwrite the paper.
Monsanto statement

"If we went full-bore (with experts), we could be pushing $250K or maybe even more," Heydens wrote.
He said a "less expensive/more palatable approach" might be to involve experts only for some of the less contentious parts of the report. Then, Monsanto would "ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections."
"[W]e would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing," the email said. Afterward, scientists outside Monsanto "would just edit & sign their names so to speak."
"Recall that is how we handled Williams Kroes & Munro, 2000," Heydens wrote, referring to a previous report on glyphosate.
WILLIAM HEYDENS' FEBRUARY 19, 2015 EMAIL (p. 220)


Monsanto executive William Heydens sent an email with the subject "RE: IARC Planning" one month before the IARC's glyphosate report came out. In it, he suggested ghostwriting parts of a plausibility paper.
View the entire document with DocumentCloud

After the emails were unsealed in March, Monsanto said in a statement that the 2000 report was not ghostwritten and that Heydens' email was taken out of context.
IS GHOSTWRITING COMMON OR UNETHICAL?
Trudo Lemmens, a University of Toronto professor who specializes in health law, said ghostwriting in science "likely is quite common -- although it is difficult to know for sure how often it occurs."

He said ghostwriting is troublesome because "It undermines the entire trust we have in the scientific basis of reports written by experts if we allow them to be ghostwritten and if scientists put their names on it."
But are there any good reasons to ghostwrite a report?
"Science writers often write better than scientific experts themselves, and they have more time to do so at a lesser expense. That is how it is often defended," Lemmens said.
"But it has also clearly been used as a tactic to control the message and the presentation of evidence."

"Recently, in the context of personal injury litigation filed against Monsanto, plaintiffs' attorneys have cherry picked a single email -- out of more than 10 million pages of documents produced -- to allege that Monsanto scientists ghostwrote 'Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans,' " the company said.
"These allegations are false. Monsanto scientists did not ghostwrite the paper."

The company added that the report, published in 2000 in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, went through that journal's "rigorous peer review process before it was published."
But what about the 2015 glyphosate paper -- the one that Heydens suggest his company "ghost-write," according to the recently unsealed emails? Did Monsanto actually "ghost-write" parts of that report?
"No," Monsanto spokeswoman Camille Scott told CNN. "The paper and its conclusions are the work of the glyphosate expert panel. The paper also underwent (a) rigorous peer review process before it was published."
Scott said Monsanto retained a scientific consultant to convene the panel to review the international agency's assessment that glyphosate was "probably carcinogenic to humans."
The experts were asked to examine the agency's data and assess the scope of the research included or excluded, Scott said. They concluded that "the data do not support IARC's conclusion that glyphosate is a 'probable human carcinogen.'"
Email: EPA official offered to 'kill' study on glyphosate

A month after the report said glyphosate could cause cancer, Heydens sent an email to Monsanto's US agency lead -- the liaison to agencies such as the EPA -- about the possibility of "doing more work to help us deal with the IARC fallout."
WILLIAM HEYDENS ON 'IARC FALLOUT' (p. 103)


Monsanto executive William Heydens wrote an email to Dan Jenkins, the company's US agency lead at the time, about how to deal with fallout from an International Agency for Research on Cancer report saying glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans."

Dan Jenkins, Monsanto's US agency lead at the time, replied and suggested talking to Jess Rowland, then chairman of the EPA's Cancer Assessment Review Committee.
"He'll give us straight talk," Jenkins wrote in an April 27, 2015, email.
DAN JENKINS - "STRAIGHT TALK" FROM EPA OFFICIAL (p. 103)


Dan Jenkins replied to William Heydens' email about how to deal with "IARC fallout."

But the next day, Jenkins said Rowland called him "out of the blue."
"Jess [Rowland] called to ask for a contact name at ATSDR," Jenkins wrote, referring to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
At the time, the registry -- part of the US Department of Health and Human Services -- was working on its own investigation into glyphosate (PDF).
"(Rowland) told me no coordination is going on and he wanted to establish some saying 'If I can kill this I should get a medal,' " Jenkins wrote, as shown in the plaintiffs' motion to compel the deposition of Rowland.
"However, don't get your hopes up, I doubt EPA and Jess can kill this; but its good to know they are going to actually make the effort now to coordinate due to our pressing and their shared concern that ATSDR is consistent in its conclusions w EPA."
" 'IF I CAN KILL THIS I SHOULD GET A MEDAL' " (p. 102)


According to a Monsanto email, a Monsanto employee said EPA official Jess Rowland said he "should get a medal" if he could kill a different government agency's investigation into glyphosate. Rowland, who is now retired from the EPA, has not returned requests for comment.

The report on glyphosate by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry was never killed. In fact, researchers are still working on it, registry spokesman Larry Furphy said Friday.
"ATSDR is in the process of developing a Toxicological Profile for glyphosate," Furphy wrote in an email to CNN.
"For glyphosate, much of the scientific literature is continuing to emerge, and the agency wants to ensure that we have all the evidence from recent and pending literature reviews."
Furphy said the agency expects to release a draft of the report by the end of the year.

In a separate Monsanto email, dated September 3, 2015, Jenkins told colleagues that Rowland was planning to retire in about five to six months "and could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense."
Rowland has since retired from the EPA and has not responded to requests for comment.

EPA is not a party to the case. Beyond that, the Agency does not comment on active litigation.
an EPA representative

When asked about the litigation, an EPA representative said it is "a dispute between private litigants, and EPA is not a party to the case. Beyond that, the Agency does not comment on active litigation."

Litzenburg said the court documents "seem to show an inappropriately close relationship" between Monsanto and the former EPA official.
But Monsanto spokeswoman Lord said the company has never paid, given gifts to or done anything else to curry favor with anyone from the EPA.
"As part of a highly regulated industry, Monsanto routinely responds to EPA requests for data and information about our products," she said. "Monsanto fully respects the EPA's role in regulating pesticides, and we work to provide accurate information and answer questions to ensure that the agency can make decisions based on thorough and complete science."
Conflicting research on glyphosate

The National Pesticide Information Center acknowledges conflicting reports about the risk of cancer with glyphosate.

Some studies have associated glyphosate use with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
National Pesticide Information Center

"When high doses were administered to laboratory animals, some studies suggest that glyphosate has carcinogenic potential," said the center, a cooperative between Oregon State University and the EPA.
"Studies on cancer rates in people have provided conflicting results on whether the use of glyphosate containing products is associated with cancer. Some studies have associated glyphosate use with non-Hodgkin lymphoma."
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is a common cancer that starts in the lymphatic system. About 72,000 people are expected to be diagnosed this year, according to the American Cancer Society. An estimated 20,000 people will die from it in 2017.

'They took away our dreams, our savings'

While the lawsuits work their way through court -- the next phase of discovery is expected in October -- Sheppard said she's trying to manage her illness the best she can. That means avoiding planes and any crowded place.

"My immune system doesn't allow me to travel much," she said. "If I get sick, I get sick for a long, long time."

Sheppard had to move from Hawaii to California to get better access to cancer treatment.

She and her husband had to sell their coffee farm in Hawaii and move to California for cancer treatment. Sheppard said she has depleted her 401(k) to pay for medical bills.

"They didn't take away my life, thank goodness, but they took away our dreams, our savings," she said.
Sheppard said she now wants two things: Monsanto to stop selling Roundup, and an apology from the company.
She said she doesn't think she'll get the latter.
"I think Monsanto is going to fight this to the bitter end."

Should've settled, set aside a few more millions for the inevitable class action, then recover those monies by business as usual exporting to the 3rd World after buying its glorious leaders.

As it is Monsanto could keep this case in the courts another few years and end up settling with the victim's family for peanuts, and for sure nobody's getting an apology.

Originally Posted by jabir

As it is Monsanto could keep this case in the courts another few years and end up settling with the victim's family for peanuts

...not if plaintiffs' lawyers are desirous of a large cut of the award...

Originally Posted by HuangLao

There's hope yet.

Fuck Monsanto and their ilk.

Yep + 1

Originally Posted by David48atTD

I'm not a fan of GM Products.

One of the reasons being that a 'Company' owns the seed.

One example is that there is research underway to develop plants which are immune to the Gyphosate based product Round Up
a product Monsanto owns and produces.

California is adding Round Up to the list of Cancer causing herbicides ... California To Add Monsanto's RoundUp To List Of "Cancer-Causing" Herbicides | Zero Hedge

So Monsanto is essentially saying this.

Plant our genetically modified seed crop, spay the lot with our cancer linked product Round Up to control the weeds and this is good because your yields are increased.

Umm, err ... no thanks from this consumer.


There is an ongoing GM battle in Australia.

Originally Posted by uncle junior

Who drinks from bottles they find in a shed

I was gonna say the same thing..

"Ahhh Gee Sompob, I saw this bottle of brown stuff in this shed that could be Ya Dong so lets drink it...."

I will say Round Up is a thorough and complete weed killer. Expensive as hell as well. Shelves at Lowes, Home Depot and Ace hardware stores loaded with it along with Walmart and Costco. In fact I think Costco sells it in a 5 gallon buckets with a free sprayer.

What happened to good ol days when people pulled weeds by hand and with tools. Part of our lazy society I suppose.

Bad thing about having it here in Thailand is the majority of Thai folks use well water for everything and Round up (like all powerful pesticides or chemicals) will travel down to a water table thus entering well water.

Well a 'plus' is that the vast majority of Thai gardeners would baulk at the expense, I guess.

Who knows what else they chuck around though. :shudder:

Originally Posted by tomcat

...not if plaintiffs' lawyers are desirous of a large cut of the award...

Sure they want their money, and Monsanto know this, which is why ferrying the case from court to court becomes an incentive for them to steer their client/s into settling for something around what Monsanto were probably prepared to pay before it went to trial.

Lawyers know money is only theirs when it's in their pocket, and their alternative is to collectively agree to gamble on a fight for several more years, accruing more expenses and risking a technical ko at every stage, on the offchance that the likely final reduced settlement makes it worthwhile.

And as usual no apology, which itself would lead to a spate of further actions guaranteed success by admission.

Originally Posted by cyrille

Well a 'plus' is that the vast majority of Thai gardeners would baulk at the expense, I guess.

Who knows what else they chuck around though. :shudder:

True true.

We are all in trouble here once crop dusters become available.

Originally Posted by tomcat

...and no less important for being local...Thais harming Thais for personal benefit is a darker aspect of "Thainess"...

.....and might occur more so than such is recognized.
The Kreng Jai avenues act as a cover.

...Monsanto owner Bayer says Roundup is perfectly safe: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45154362

Originally Posted by SKkin

Which outfit was the maker of Agent Orange?

Imagine that...

Agent Orange was manufactured by Monsanto, Dow Chemicals (manufacturers of napalm), Uniroyal, Hercules, Diamond Shamrock, Thompson Chemical and TH Agriculture. Monsanto [was] the main supplier. The Agent Orange produced by Monsanto had dioxin levels many times higher than that produced by Dow Chemicals, the other major supplier of Agent Orange to Vietnam.... Monsanto's involvement with the production of dioxin contaminated 2,4,5-T dates back to the late 1940s. 'Almost immediately workers started getting sick with skin rashes, inexplicable pains in the limbs, joints and other parts of the body, weakness, irritability, nervousness and loss of libido,' to quote Peter Sills, author of a forthcoming book on dioxins. Internal Monsanto memos show that Monsanto knew of the problems but once again a cover-up was the order of the day.... Operation Hades, later changed to Operation Ranch Hand, sprayed 6 million acres of forest in Vietnam, 19 million gallons of defoliant. The intention was to turn Vietnam into desert, to cause such destruction that Vietnam would never recover.... The most gruesome legacy caused by spraying Vietnam with dioxin contaminated Agent Orange was that born by the Vietnamese themselves. In a locked room of Tu Du Obstetrical and Gynaecological Hospital in Saigon are rows of formaldehyde-filled jars containing deformed foetuses, a grotesque illustration of Man's inhumanity to Man. The level of poverty in Vietnam prevents the preservation of further examples. Many of the living have fared little better, limb deformities, cancers. Says this CorpWatch article, "The Vietnamese government estimates that three million Vietnamese were exposed to these chemicals during the war, and that at least 800,000 suffer serious health problems today as a result". Here find photos of Vietnamese children from villages which were heavily sprayed (warning the images are disturbing).

Source(more at link): https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...d_Agent_Orange