And by roundup I mean literally roundup at the scotus, as well as a roundup of the opinions

• SCOTUS tossed the $1.25m jury verdict against Monsanto for a guy who claimed Roundup caused his cancer and got a jury to vote with their prejudice against megacorporations, all without an ounce of scientific causation required. Even though there's no plausible method of action for a poison that blocks the shikimate pathway that's not even present in mammals to cause non-hodgkin's lymphoma, Missouri allowed a guy to sue on the basis there's no warning label against a non-carcinogen being a carcinogen and hence it caused his cancer, which is absolutely didn't actually cause. A bit like suing the manufacturer of skittles for not having warning labels that skittles cause wild bear attacks, and blaming them when you get attacked by a wild bear. Well SCOTUS struck it down on the most logical fault without having to address the obvious anti-science: they ruled the FIFRA labeling act preempts state law when it says the feds don't require consumer warning labels for something the feds already ruled safe.
  
• All TPS protections for Haitians and Syrians are ended after the supreme court ruled that the president, given authority to enforce the laws of the nation by the constitution, actually has constitutional authority to enforce the laws of the nation. And that one president can't just arbitrarily stop future presidents from enforcing the law, giving presidents magical veto power over future presidents.
  
• Asylum seekers are now required to actually physically cross the border and arrive in America before they are legally considered to have arrived in America. Because this is where we're actually at with immigration enforcement. Because the law required those who present themselves at a port of entry to be granted asylum hearings and protections, and the liberals somehow wanted to interpret this as anyone who claimed asylum from a foreign country could be considered "arrived" in America. And now people who haven't actually arrived in America, haven't arrived in America. But someone who just swims over the Rio Grande does still get those magical protections, so baby steps.
  
• Gun owners in Hawaii no longer are bound by the rules of vampires and do not have to ask permission to cross the threshold of a building, as the Supreme Court strikes down a law that says gun owners couldn't enter any public places like shopping malls, gas stations, hotels, etc- without first asking permission. Unless the owner specifically posted a sign saying guns are allowed. Because this is the state of the second amendment in America, liberals were trying to say rights don't exist unless you get several layers of preemptive permission. They still have redundant gun laws that ban carrying in parks, beaches and restaurants that remain on the books, because the SCOTUS didn't play whackamole with those yet.
  
• Last week, not today, SCOTUS also struck down the laws saying anyone who used marijuana is categorically disallowed from owning a gun. Except they left the actual interpretation of how that works unexplained, and kinda said you're not allowed to pass a total prohibition as a rule, but allowed categorical or specific laws that still ban drug users from possessing guns. Which leaves an even more complicated mess.

bit tangential to the topic, but do you personally think Roundup is causing cancer in humans?

Used to be these sorts of theories required a plausible mechanism of action
Then the lawyers saw there was money in it, and you can handwave the science, and just take whatever political outcome you want and fill in the gaps to achieve it

scientific studies are done due to data showing a study is required. data sure seems to point to roundup being a potential carcinogen. cancer rates in iowa, cancer rates near golf courses, etc.

Studies do seem to be mixed, but its not as if a lack of studies claiming roundup majorly increases cancer risks dont exist. They do exist. afaik the manufacturer has retreated to "used as instructions state", which iirc means you need to wear a mask because they admit inhalation is dangerous. this would imo open the door to any number of lawsuits, both before masking was suggested and to people who are simply close enough to inhale roundup that aren't using it.

i live surrounded by corn fields, no chance in hell im letting my kids outside when they're spraying.

Data can point to spurious correlations between anything you want. "2000 people died in puerto rico from the hurricane" because the young healthy population left the island afterwards for jobs on the mainland, the old people stayed put, and overall mortality rates climbed. Except they magically climbed in the cities on the coast that were immediately restored to full function and climbed the least in isolated mountain regions that took forever to get aid. Because almost zero people actual died from the hurricane or its impacts, just junk statistics lying about causality.

Glyphosate inhibits the shikimate pathway present in plants, fungi and bacteria. Its biologically inert in mammals. To cause cancer requires an explicable method of action, some means by which it would actually be carcinogenic. This isn't hard to understand for common carcinogens, usually because they're clearly destructive and cause increased cellular replication and thus increased mutation and cancer. Asbestos is biologically unreactive, but the fibers have jagged edges that cut tissue and the cells can't break them down, hence a cascade of replication and thus mesothelioma.

The logic behind roundup being carcinogenic is similarly straight forward. Like I said, you start with the political outcome you want, and fill in the gaps to achieve it. The EU can't compete with American crop yields and doesn't want to pay for American technology, while coastal liberals hate middle American farmers and corporations alike. The lawyers just want a pay day, and its easy enough to say spooky chemicals cause cancer even if every credible scientific study and all biological mechanics say otherwise. Just spin some statistics and come up with the most convoluted or nonsensical explanations. I mean, gut microbes could be effected by glyphosate, they have a shikimate pathway. And this then.... causes non-hodgkin's lymphoma in blood cells... by spooky action at a distance. Or something. Kind of like if you claimed skittles caused bear attacks, then turned around and said the bears are being attracted by the acidity of farts people have with excess citric acid in their system from skittles.

I mean when they formulate it with direct poisons like diquat, sure you definitely shouldn't be inhaling it. And even glyphosate formulations may include other irritants or poisons that we already made legal anyway

I mean this is just a logical and safe response, prior to the north I lived in agriculture land, we used the old roundup, its the good stuff, it just kills everything. Seeing what it does and actually using it yourself, you certainly would not want your kids inhaling it.

Now, USA health is bought and paid for. I would have little faith in US EPA. The US has become so lobbied, their consumer protection, health and environment is all in the gutter and furthermore I have zero, and I mean zero love for Bayer, they are a monopolistic monster of a company. Their patenting and lobbying and pushing profit over farmer authomy is criminal. Think of the good old days, tobacco had droves of doctors praising cigarettes. You can buy studies just like you can buy health professionals. I can fully understand why consumers / general public would have lost faith in any system that is designed to protect them. The US has long sold out. Democratic, Republican, does not matter.

Fun fact, same company essentially that made Agent Orange causing wide spread birth-defects and health problems for millions of Vietnamese, these guys have been and probably still are heavily involved in military as well via chemical supplies. That only ensures their lobbying efforts go further on the farming side and skirting health I am sure.

This post was edited by SBD on Jun 25 2026 01:43pm

There have been studies that show malignant lymphoma in mice from roundup exposure, and they've been replicated.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574218300887



6 studies, unpublished, but replicated.

Now i'm not full on crunchy mom who thinks a whiff of roundup is going to give you cancer in every single cell of your body. But i dont think you're framing this correctly if you're stating there is zero evidence that roundup is a potential carcinogen. There is evidence, its not proof, and needs more studying.

and calling the correlation data super baked isnt that accurate either, these are pretty isolated data sets. NHL in iowa, roundup use in iowa. the potential cancer in roundup use seems to be NHL.








read this and largely agree, but im leaving work and going home!

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 25 2026 02:36pm

Acute toxicity is on par with vinegar. Salt. Water. Any substance is going to be toxic when you consume ludicrous levels of it and either drown in it or replace all your nutrition with something you can't metabolize. To consume 10,000 mg/kg of glyphosate, a human would have to eat several pounds of pure glyphosate, which is approximately 150 lbs of liquid roundup. And for chronic exposure at the realistic levels humans can theoretically consume it, glyphosate had no biological effects in all the animal studies. Hell, the equivalent of downing a gallon of roundup a day relative to body mass had no biological effect on mice. The statistical linking studies get exposed as p hacking when they're subject to critical examination, like ;
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10369247/



Its probably the single most studied chemical as a potential carcinogen, I'm not sure how much more they could beat the dead horse before they give up on it jolting to life
It boils down to:

• There's no explicable method of action for it to be carcinogenic, and nobody can come up with a coherent theory, because its biologically inert in mammals.
  
• The claims that it has any statistical link to lymphoma get nullified as bias and p-hacking when actually examined in detail
  
• Decades of animal testing showed it had absurdly large bounds for intake with no observable biological consequences for either individuals or generations of subjects
  
• Acute exposure LD50 is higher than eating the grass itself
  
• Studies have repeatedly ruled out other biological interactions like endocrine disruption

At some point you have to ask, how could any chemical be proven more safe, if you can't prove a negative?
Its the archetypal "Don't trust the science". The US EPA and German BfR and EU EFSA and various other national agencies all find it to be noncarcinogenic. But they're bought and paid for, that's why. Its a conspiracy. Nobody can find the evidence of the conspiracy either, but we just don't trust them. And one scientist at the IARC publishes a study saying its possibly carcinogenic when he disregards all existing datasets, and we find out he was paid $160k by lawyers representing civil cases against Monsanto. But that one wasn't a conspiracy.

The spooky chemicals that actually are hazardous to humans have easily explicable mechanisms once we understand them. They can block sodium ion channels and brick us. They can rip apart our tissues and cause nonstop replication to heal it. They can mutate our DNA by radiation. And so on. By roundup has to be the first where we say, we just don't trust it because

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jun 25 2026 03:07pm

You sound like Patrick Moore when he said its safe enough to drink during an interview, they provided him and he promptly exited the interview. The Pro GMO lobbyist for Monsanto's.

You have evidence that past studies, by Independent scientists of course was actually written by Monsanto's. Of which they did over and over and over again and got caught doing via leaked emails. Even being as brash to say remember to work it into our PR loop, lmao. And they just kept doing it.

Oh and then we have the leaked emails from Monsanto's to the EPA that heavily suggest , and I mean you would have to stretch it to think they were not directly telling them what to say but we can leave it at suggesting what to say. The private billion dollar company heavily suggesting a government regulatory body, I mean who could imagine that.

Now Bayer has thus settled over what 114K as in number of lawsuits tied to Roundup and into the billions of dollars in settlement money all for what they are touting is totally fine. Wonder why they are the ones paying out?

The amount of products, services, fees, predatory lending practices, etc that have all had consumer protection put in place that is then over-turned or products touted as healthy and safe from industry sponsored studies / data points that then turned out not to be is quite the list.

I wonder if the EPA has ever suffered any scrutiny because they constantly have former pro chemical lobbyists appointed?

Douglas Troutman: Appointed Assistant Administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). He previously served as the interim CEO and top lobbyist for the American Cleaning Institute, which represents cleaning product supply chains and frequently pushes back against chemical regulations.
Nancy Beck: Served as a senior official and deputy assistant administrator in the OCSPP. Before joining the agency, she was a leader and lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council—the largest chemical industry trade group in the U.S.
Lynn Ann Dekleva: Served as a leader in the EPA's chemical safety office. She previously held senior roles at DuPont and the American Chemistry Council, where she fought against regulations of chemicals like formaldehyde.
Kyle Kunkler: Appointed to oversee the EPA's pesticide policy as a deputy assistant administrator. Prior to his EPA tenure, he was the top lobbyist for the American Soybean Association and advocated for the continued use of contentious herbicides.


But who am I to say, if you want to lick that degraded teflon pan while smoking its up to you. I mean there was enough evidence presented by industry that it was totally safe.

Call it a conspiracy if you want, time and time again has shown money usually carries until it becomes too obvious.