Foods / Tuesday, 09-Sep-2025

Viewpoint: In Roundup-cancer cases, juries are often swayed by emotional arguments

Viewpoint: In Roundup-cancer cases, juries are often swayed by emotional arguments — but the facts are in glyphosate’s favor

XLinkedInFacebookRedditBlueskyThreads
Credit: AP
Credit: AP
A jury in San Bernardino can’t believe that Donnetta Stephens’ cancer was caused because she used Roundup.

In a post-COVID-19 world, even California, the most anti-science state in the union, which once tried to ban Happy Meals and Golf and claimed the science was on their side, with “may cause cancer” labels on 165,000 products, including the buildings the products are sold in, is no longer willing to accept that plants are people. The Bayer company has won another glyphosate case, even with a jury that can be swayed using emotion.

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has a chemical that only acts in plants. Plants are not people. That did not stop the “endocrine disruption” community, trial-lawyer-funded epidemiologists inside France’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, and then astroturf groups like US Right To Know and their handlers at Organic Consumers Association from claiming that some magical “chemical cocktail” created by repeated use might be possible to harm humans.

Unless you fall into a vat of it and can’t get out, it is not possible.

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

Yet the the trial lawyer is blaming…Zoom. It is a lot harder to appeal to emotion when trials take a long time and people can look at the facts. Trial lawyers are trained to appeal using theater tactics, and that is harder on a conference call.

Plus, people are not back on Team Science after decades of being sold alternatives to medicine and organic food. A new appreciation for facts over epidemiological hype means trial lawyers – who once counted on a jury seeing a cancer patient opposed to Evil Science corporations – are having a much harder time getting new yachts.

And two they did lose to a jury, because juries don’t have to use science, can still be won on appeal – where science is all that matters. The company is actually hoping they lose on appeal also, because then they could go to the Supreme Court, where the science case would be settled. We’ll write an amicus brief if that happens. We have no conflict of interest, Bayer and Monssanto before them never gave us a penny. It means ruining our perfect 2-0 record at the Supreme Court. Being 2-0 is fitting for Science 2.0. But 3-0 is fine because it will mean science won over supernatural beliefs once again.

Hank Campbell founded Science 2.0 in 2006, and writes for USA Today, Wall Street Journal, CNN, and more. His first book, Science Left Behind, was the #1 bestseller on Amazon for environmental policy books. Follow Hank on Twitter @HankCampbell

A version of this article was originally posted at Science 2.0 and is reposted here with permission. Science 2.0 can be found on Twitter @science2_0

combined disclaimer outlined@ x
donation plea outlined@ x
XLinkedInFacebookRedditBlueskyThreads
podcastsGLP Podcasts & Podcast VideosMore...
Video: Nuclear energy will destroy us? Global warming is an existential threat? Chemicals are massacring bees? Donate to the Green Industrial Complex!

Video: Nuclear energy will destroy us? Global warming is an existential threat? Chemicals are massacring bees? Donate to the Green Industrial Complex!

v facts and fallacies cameron and liza default featured image outlined

GLP podcast: Science journalism is a mess. Here’s how to fix it

Mosquito massacre: Can we safely tackle malaria with a CRISPR gene drive?

Mosquito massacre: Can we safely tackle malaria with a CRISPR gene drive?

dead bee desolate city

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...
science hand testtube x

Why is there controversy over GMO foods but not GMO drugs?

Genetic Literacy Project
international law x

How are GMOs labeled around the world?

Genetic Literacy Project
two types of breeding x

How does genetic engineering differ from conventional breeding?

Genetic Literacy Project
Screen Shot at AM

Alex Jones: Right-wing conspiracy theorist stokes fear of GMOs, pesticides to sell ‘health supplements’

T H LO

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer): Glyphosate cancer determination challenged by world consensus

Most Popular

  • Viewpoint — Fact checking MAHA mythmakers: How wellness influencers and RFK, Jr. undermine American science and health

  • Viewpoint: Video — Big Solar is gobbling up productive agricultural land and hurting farmers yet providing little energy or sustainabilty gains

  • Trust issues: What happens when therapists use ChatGPT?

  • Fighting deforestation with CO2: Biotechnology breakthrough creates sustainable palm oil alternative for cosmetics

  • California, Washington, Oregon forge immunization alliance to safeguard vaccine access against federal undermining

  • 30-year-old tomato line shows genetic resistance to devastating virus

  • The free-range chicken dilemma: Better for birds, but with substantial costs

  • ‘You have to treat the brain first’: Rethinking chronic pain with Sanjay Gupta

Follow Us

Newsletter

Be the first to know about new products and promotions.

Subscribe with your email

Tranding

Tags

zolentz

Fresh, fast, and fun — all the entertainment you need in one place.

© Zolentz. All Rights Reserved. Designed by zolentz