3 ms·
What science are you referring to? The most I've heard about it is the Bayer lawsuit. "A San Francisco jury initially awarded Johnson $289.2 million after fin
by rubicon33 5y ago
What science are you referring to? The most I've heard about it is the Bayer lawsuit.
"A San Francisco jury initially awarded Johnson $289.2 million after finding the chemical glyphosate in Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma" [1]
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit/bayer-appeals-20-5-million-roundup-ruling-to-california-supreme-court-idUSKBN25T0BX https://www.reuters.com/article/bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit/bay...
- bluGill 5y agoA jury trial is not science. Juries tend to be swayed by emotions and sticking it go big companies not right. (I can't offer you anything better to replace them though ) There have been many real scientific studies done. https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-finalizes-glyphosate-mitigation https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-finalizes-glyphosate-miti... is the most readable summary
- rubicon33 5y agoA publication from the EPA citing science, without linking the studies, is also not science. I honestly do not trust the EPA to do a fair review here, given how deep the connections between big business and government are. It's extremely naïve to assume this was a completely unbiased, purely scientific undertaking. Your point is fair too, that juries tend to be swayed by emotion. Unfortunately, unless a true third party does an actual scientific review, I'll be avoiding the stuff.