They also came from farmers who were using glyphosate solutions that included many other chemicals, and no doubt came into contact with a variety of other pesticides. A direct link between glyphosate and actual illness has not been established.
Then why are lawsuits that claim those links have been established winning regularly in courts now?
“Proven to be carcinogenic” is a ridiculous claim, refuted by multiple government agencies, including EFSA, Germany, Canada, and the World Health Organization (WHO), who determined that glyphosate exposure in the human diet is unlikely a carcinogenic risk. No regulatory authority in the world considers glyphosate to be carcinogenic to humans at current exposure levels.
https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MonographVolu...
Other studies show the link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138357421...
Now, admittedly, I don't have a strong background to stand on here, so I'm open to being convinced otherwise. And I would agree with the overall thrust of Impossible's claims here that this is likely far too low a level to be worried about.
But I'm not sure I buy it that there are no connections, particularly for high levels that are breathed in during farming.
My impression --- again, corrections welcome --- is that glyphosate has been intensively studied, both epidemiologically and in lab studies, and that none of those studies has conclusively linked glyphosate to cancer, even in rodent models, and even at unrealistically high doses.
To your original question: again, it's also important to remember that glyphosate-based pesticides aren't, like, pure aqueous solutions of glyphosate; there's lots of other stuff in there, as there are in all chemical herbicides, and if there's a lymphoma link to Roundup, who knows what the actual causative agent is? The evidence points away from glyphosate being it.
My original question was legitimately not a rhetorical question (although that appears to be how it's been taken). I assume Monsonto has some of the best legal representation out there, so I assumed if they couldn't defend it, the case must be fairly compelling.
I'll put my skeptical hat back on. Appreciate the feedback.
It is all rather amusing, actually.
Causation vs correlation is key in science, but is not the standard used in judging civil litigation.
Great question. The answer seems to be "because Monsanto is now owned by a foreign company".
Before that those claims weren't really winning in the courts.