[A] federal district judge presiding over class-action litigation in California [recently] made a troubling decision that will reverberate across the American economy for years.
The class-action lawsuit alleged that agriculture giant Monsanto caused cancer through its flagship product Roundup, which contains the herbicide glyphosate. The ruling by Judge Vincent Chhabria…allowed the case to proceed, yet in the same breath, he discredited the strength of the evidence underlying his own ruling.
In short, Judge Chhabria denied Monsanto’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss, despite his own opinion that the underlying science presented by the plaintiffs is “shaky” at best…
Judge Chhabria identified and acknowledged flaws in an assessment by…the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen.”
…
Judge Chabria himself wrote, “As IARC takes pains to point out, its decision that a substance is ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’ is a hazard assessment – merely the first step in determining whether the substance currently presents a meaningful risk to human health.”
[T]his case will generate needless public alarm and confusion about a safe and critically important tool for agriculture producers across the world…it’s inappropriate to ask a jury of laypersons to ultimately steer the course of the agricultural industry’s ability to deliver safe and affordable food…Read full, original article: A UN agency’s ‘shaky’ science got a US judicial go-ahead, and we will all pay as a result
