|
In response to
"I posted it to show that science hasn't decided anything on this and that it needs more testing and research. The previous post talks about cancer. -- nm"
by
Krusty
|
Which is why a court decision makes no sense. "Conflicted" science doesn't become unconflicted because of a court decision, but that decision
Posted by
TWuG
Oct 23 '18, 07:00
|
may be used as precedent even if the science does eventually become settled that glyphosate is not cancer causing.
Never mind that the court made no determination on the individual merits of each study, whether the studies discussed relative or absolute risk, whether the studies where done on animals, which animals, whether they studied human populations (and accounted for other exposures to other carcinogens, an almost impossibility).
The court case was decided on emotion and that's not the proper way to adjudicate scientific questions.
The one thing that the second article pointed out, that could be affected positively by a court case (though not the one we're discussing), would be for these products to list ALL ingredients, not just the "active" ones.
|
Responses:
|