GLP Podcast: Smoking prevents COVID? CRISPR and nuclear weapons; Bayer wins first glyphosate case

Smokers appear to face a reduced risk of catching COVID-19. Does their deadly habit offer them some sort of protection? CRISPR crops may mimic nature, but that doesn’t mean they should evade strict regulation, a team of researchers argues. After losing several expensive lawsuits, Bayer has finally successfully defended its Roundup weedkiller against a claim that it causes cancer.

Join geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP contributor Cameron English on this episode of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

A new study adds to the growing body of epidemiological evidence that smokers are less likely to catch COVID-19. In a region of France with high smoking rates, the researchers found that non-smokers faced a 400 percent higher risk of illness than smokers. Does something in tobacco smoke, perhaps nicotine, offer protection against the deadly SARS-COV-2 virus?

Many advocates of CRISPR gene editing have defended the technology, in part, by arguing that it mimics natural processes that induce mutations in the DNA of plants and animals. Critics of the new breeding technique aren’t impressed. Who cares, they ask, if CRISPR approximates nature? That has no bearing on the risk the technology poses and, as a result, how it should be regulated. Nuclear weapons are natural in many ways, critics claim in comparison, yet we tightly regulate them. Does this argument stand up to scrutiny?

Bayer has been pummeled in court over the last few years. Three plaintiffs have convinced as many juries that the company’s glyphosate-based Roundup weedkillers caused their non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, though there is no evidence to support that charge. Those losses, two of which Bayer has appealed to the US Supreme Court, forced the company to settle 96,000 similar  lawsuits.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Earlier this month, however, Bayer won its first case. The plaintiff alleged that her son developed Burkitt’s lymphoma after he was exposed to the weedkiller.  She argued that the company failed to warn her of the cancer risk its herbicide carried, a claim that failed to convince the jury. What does the case mean for future pesticide litigation?

Recommended Twitter follow: @BobMurphyEcon and @thinkingpowers

Kevin M. Folta is a professor, keynote speaker and podcast host. Follow Professor Folta on Twitter @kevinfolta

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit his website and follow ACSH on Twitter @ACSHorg

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}
screenshot at  pm

Are pesticide residues on food something to worry about?

In 1962, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring drew attention to pesticides and their possible dangers to humans, birds, mammals and the ...
glp menu logo outlined

Newsletter Subscription

* indicates required
Email Lists
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.