[ad_1]
So Is can glyphosate cause cancer?
Scientifically, the evidence is mixed.
Animal studies have shown that rats and mice exposed to glyphosate sometimes develop tumors, sometimes cancerous. But the tumors that the rats and the mice had were not compatible: they did not appear at the same place on all the rats; some rats never had them; and the tumors did not seem to depend on the dose. These studies have not yet clearly explained the mechanism that explains the presence of tumors and cancer.
In humans, research has not yet found a statistically significant link between cancer and glyphosate – perhaps because it does not exist or perhaps because people are exposed to many agents carcinogens, and that it is usually difficult to determine the effects of one. This is an area in which the court's opponents spend a lot of time debating.
In the meantime, monitoring organizations around the world have opposed different issues. The World Health Organization has decided that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen to humans. The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that this is probably not the case. In the United States, the EPA has stated that glyphosate "has low toxicity to humans". But California has listed glyphosate as a known carcinogenic chemical.
What do people who claim that Roundup gave them cancer to win?
Litigation that courts in California are considering in federal courts and in other states is civil litigation, focused on product liability issues. The plaintiffs assert that Roundup had a design defect that made them ill and that it was up to the manufacturer to warn them. They also claimed that Monsanto was negligent in selling the weed killer and that the company had breached an implied product safety warranty.
To prove this, the plaintiff's lawyers focus on two issues of causation:
- General Causality – the idea that glyphosate causes or contributes to cancer
- Specific Causality – The idea that glyphosate in Roundup has caused or contributed significantly to cancer for every person who claims to have been harmed.
Well, can the plaintiffs prove that?
In terms of law, maybe.
The manner in which courts and jurors seek evidence of causation differs from scientific research. Steven Goodman, director of Stanford's Meta-Research Innovation Center, said that "in science, you want to formulate claims that include the appropriate caveats, limitations, warnings, and uncertainties, and that things evolve on the scale of certainty, the evidence as it goes in or out. "
But in the American legal system, decisions are made based on an understanding of science at a given time, even though that understanding may evolve.
Another difference is that in civil cases, the legal test of liability is the "preponderance of evidence", which you can abbreviate as a probability greater than 50% that something is true.
In fact, scientific certainty is not necessary for judicial decisions to conclude that Roundup is responsible for cancer.
"Human studies do not support much the conclusion of causality yet," says David Faigman, Chancellor and Dean of the University of California, Hastings College of Law. "That's not to say that they will not be in the future, but we allow these one hundred million dollar verdicts on the basis of animal studies for the most part and for studies. cellular, and perhaps a little bit with what is called biological analysis. plausibility."
Who decides which science to use in the audience rooms?
In federal courts, judges are the guardians of scientific and expert testimony. To decide what to authorize, they use the federal rules of evidence and something called a Daubert test, established Daubert c. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. the Daubert The test uses several factors to evaluate the scientific evidence, especially if it has been "widely accepted by the scientific community concerned".
"[Judges] consider whether the scientific basis for the proposed expert evidence is valid or not, "said David Faigman of Hastings University.
Nevertheless, judges may decide to interpret this responsibility differently. Federal District Judge Vince Chhabria oversaw nearly 400 cases and presided over the Hardeman trial, which has recently been completed. During the debates, he organized a "science week" during which experts in cancer, toxicology, epidemiology and others testified and faces cross-examination. In the end, Judge Chhabria divided the civil trial into two parts, asking the jury to first decide whether the glyphosate was contributing to Hardeman's cancer, and then to determine the penalties.
Some state courts follow a similar analysis for expert testimony, but in California, the standard is based on old case law that is more favorable to plaintiffs. That's one of the reasons, says Faigman, for plaintiffs' lawyers to be able to look for business here.
Who wins?
So far, not Monsanto, even if it's still early.
More cases begin. At the Alameda County Superior Court, lawyers present evidence on the claims of Alva and Alma Pilliod, who have used Roundup on several residential properties for nearly 40 years. Next month, another case will be tried by a federal court. Judge Chhabria will also judge him.
It is too early to assess the importance of two jury trials. Nevertheless, there is something to say for a momentum. "There is no doubt that this accumulation of judgments is important as a group," says Faigman. "I think they're dividing in different directions, so Monsanto might be more confident that things could change for them as well, as a group. But for the moment, that does not seem to be the case.
[ad_2]
Source link