Viewpoint: $2 billion glyphosate-cancer damages highlight why science is ‘no match’ for a persuasive lawyer

| | May 15, 2019
Bayer Monsanto What They Make e
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

Bayer AG hoped it could rely on science to establish the safety of its Roundup weedkiller. But it has clearly been no match for a good lawyer after a jury awarded more than $2 billion in damages to a couple who claimed the herbicide contributed to their cancer.

The verdict, the third in potentially thousands of cases involving the glyphosate-based herbicide, is the starkest reminder yet that the German life sciences group gravely miscalculated the risks in acquiring the product’s maker, Monsanto Co., last year.

The case again highlights the difference between science and the law. Bayer says Roundup is safe when used as directed, citing a recent study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and 40 years of prior scientific data. It accuses the plaintiff’s lawyers of cherry-picking evidence and drawing on an unfavorable World Health Organization assessment which, it says, conflicts with scientific consensus.

Related article:  94 scientists back IARC's glyphosate assessment, may influence EPA review of herbcide

That’s the snag with lawyers — they can be selective and persuasive. Bayer is a chemicals company, and a foreign one at that. It isn’t going to cut a sympathetic figure.

Read full, original article: When Science Is No Match for a California Lawyer

Share via
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend