You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Science shouldn’t be decided in the courtroom
It wasn't quite clear to me from reading your post. Are you saying that the jury used the WHO's classification as glyphosate as a "Probable Carcinogens" in order to reach their decision?
I agree effect size of the cancer association should bear in both the judgement and damages. For example, if the magnitude of a glyphosate-cancer association is low, then the probability that the cancer was caused by other factors is higher. You could have a situation where glyphosate is associated with cancer, but with such a small effect, that there will never be a siutation where one's cancer is over 50% likely to have been caused by glyphosate. Now, I haven't actually reviewed the association studies here so I cannot comment if this is the case.
There argument seems to have been that there wasn't adequate warning on the product. With the jury concluding that:
All I can see is that the lawyers case rested heavily on the classification from WHO. I struggle to think what other evidence could be presented to make this statement accurate. However, like yourself, I have not reviewed the background literature on the subject. Probably best if I do at some point, lots of anti-vaccine people are talking about this at the moment so it's probably going to stick around for an long time.
The Center for Food Safety Report that I mentioned in my other comment cites a lot of relevant literature and mentions some differences of opinion and evidence. After reading the entire thing, I think we should demand a ban of glyphosate. This alone should give us all pause: "EPA’s latest high-end
estimate of infant exposure to glyphosate exceeds the level it regarded as safe in the 1980s;17 and is five times higher than the maximum level suggested by independent scientists." BTW, the EPA's "safe" level of exposure is 6 times higher than Europe's.