Wasn't this used by many farmers?
Making a small number of huge payouts does not seem like justice for the majority of people affected.
The way these cases are sometimes reported makes American courts look crazy and leave out a lot of context and history.
I wonder if there's research that systematically tracks the difference between what papers publish and the actual payout over time?
Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency issued an interim review that said the agency “continues to find that there are no risks to public health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label and that glyphosate is not a carcinogen.”
Here is what EFSA said:
In September 2017, articles appeared in a number of European press outlets casting doubt on the integrity of the EU assessment of glyphosate, in particular the content of the assessment report submitted to EFSA by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). EFSA responded with a statement in which it defended the robustness of the EU assessment and pointed out that the allegations were based on a misunderstanding of the peer review process.
This drug has been used forever so there should be a lot of data available.
Most big to massive companies wipe their butts with a couple million dollars fines as a "cost of doing business".
Monsanto might be evil, but don't fight them with evil. The end of those means is evil.
They have to shut Monsanto down and sentence the decision makers.
A legal system that allows $2B punitive awards based on factual findings contrary to the official position of the government enforcing that legal system is not a legal system, but simply mob rule.
Mob rule? It’s the judicial system, one of 3 branches of government designed specifically to place checks and balances on the other branches, it’s the exact opposite of mob rule.
Mob rule would be the EPA deciding for everyone what the science is and not allowing any due process or acces to the courts to challenge the same.
You do know it came out at trial how Monsanto was able to influence the EPA including delaying the re-review of roundup ingredients , which was required by federal law, to allow their acquisition to go through?
Do you think it’s just coincidence 13,000 plaintiffs were diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma that worked with roundup for years even though those statistics are inconsistent with the general population?
Monsanto was evil (they don't exist anymore, though bayer may well be worse) doesn't mean that they are wrong.
radio waves are classified as possible carcinogens.
Glyphosate is 2a, "probably carcinogenic".
Note that the IARC categories are not very useful by themselves because they are only non-quantitative assessments of whether the evidence supports carcinogenicity, they are not assessments of how carcinogenic a substance actually is.
Certainly there is no evidence that glyphosate is some horrific, world ending super toxin. Some studies have found that there is an elevated cancer risk with extensive occupational exposure, other studies have not found that.
If I was going to do a cancer risk audit of my own life, reducing or eliminating the use of glyphosate from my own garden would not be on the top 50 things I would do.