3 ms·

> the anti-glyphosate crowd has completely failed for the last 40 years to provide any definitive proof that it causes cancer Have they? https://www.reuters.co

> the anti-glyphosate crowd has completely failed for the last 40 years to provide any definitive proof that it causes cancer Have they? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-cancer-lawsuit-idUSKBN1KV2HB https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-cancer-lawsuit-i... “ A California jury on Friday found Monsanto liable in a lawsuit filed by a man who alleged the company’s glyphosate-based weed-killers, including Roundup, caused his cancer and ordered the company to pay $289 million in damages.”

emit_time 5y ago
> A California jury Lol
- user3939382 5y ago
  I don’t find it funny. Monsanto had a huge team of high priced lawyers, and all the corrupt junk science they paid for, against this lone nobody and their case was so bad they /still/ lost.
  - tpoacher 5y ago
    That's still not scientific evidence though. The legal process operates on entirely different principles. A jury is not peer review, and the lawyers get to choose which facts to reveal and which might cause PR nightmares and are best left out.
    - user3939382 5y ago
      They had expert witnesses, but for the sake of discussion here’s an example of peer review: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574218300887 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13835...
      - tpoacher 5y ago
        Well, good! Next time, start with that! :D
pas 5y ago
Where is this case nowadays?