A second California glyphosate verdict

Our system lets trial lawyers win jackpot jury verdicts even when science is not on their side. Case in point: Roundup. “Glyphosate, the active ingredient in the world’s most widely used weedkiller, does not cause cancer. Yet, for the second time, a jury has recently sided with the plaintiff in a lawsuit alleging that glyphosate does and did cause cancer. What are we to make of this?” [Val Giddings, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Genetic Literacy Project graphic on what regulators and research agencies think, earlier here and here]

3 Comments

  • “What are we to think of this?”
    I think that most people are idiots if they think “it’s the insurance company that pays, no one gets hurt”.

    • Well, first the science has to support the claims before they even go to a jury. Plaintiff’s science has undergone rigorous analysis by federal and state courts.

      Second, you think most people are idiots and should not be allowed to decide civil claims. Do you propose a constitutional amendment? Do you think idiots should be allowed to vote? I mean at least jurors are required to sit through all of the evidence. People can vote for whatever reason they want. And the stakes are higher of course. Who runs our country is more critical to the nation than who will a tort lawsuit.

  • Wasn’t there a judge in the room?
    In a group of 12 of my peers, 25% believe in Young Earth Creationism, a third are not proficient in math when they leave high school, 1 in six are on psychoactive drugs, 14% cannot read. If it weren’t for Venn diagrams, that would leave just me as the arbiter of facts. And I don’t much care for Monsanto.

Join the Discussion

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.