A U.S. appeals court on Monday refused to dismiss a Georgia doctor’s lawsuit claiming that Bayer AG’s Roundup weedkiller caused cancer, the latest setback in the German company’s efforts to fend off thousands of similar cases carrying potentially billions of dollars in liability.

A three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Bayer’s argument that federal regulators’ approval of Roundup shielded the company from being sued under state law for failing to warn consumers of the product’s risks. Several other appeals courts had previously reached the same conclusion in similar lawsuits.

If the 11th Circuit had broken with those other courts, it would have made it more likely for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue. Bayer has said that it hopes a favorable Supreme Court ruling could limit its liability from the Roundup-related litigation, but the court has so far rebuffed its appeals.

    • Silverseren@kbin.social
      5·
      10 months ago

      Ho hum, like I haven’t heard that before. I am simultaneously Big GMO, Big Pharma, Big Green Energy, Big Nuclear, and who knows what else based on what I’ve been called because I defend the science on any and all topics.

      • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
        11·
        10 months ago

        https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/20/glyphosate-weedkiller-cancer-biomarkers-urine-study … notes that cancer biomarkers have been found in urine samples

        https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/14/health/us-glyphosate-cancer-study-scli-intl/index.html … notes that glyphosate increases the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by 41%

        https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/09/weedkiller-glyphosate-cdc-study-urine-samples … which notes the following

        The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken the opposite stance (than the WHO), classifying glyphosate as not likely to be carcinogenic. But last month a federal appeals court issued an opinion vacating the agency’s safety determination and ordering the agency to give “further consideration” to evidence of glyphosate risks.

        https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=glyphosate+cancer&scisbd=1#d=gs_qabs&t=1707197448592&u=%23p%3DLh2rhLUbbCEJ … which notes the following

        Two meta-analyses of the association between glyphosate and cancer published after the (2015) IARC review have examined more recently published epidemiologic data. Both studies confirm the association between glyphosate and non- Hodgkin lymphoma. Researchers specifically found a statisti- cally significant, 40% to 41% increase in incidence of non- Hodgkin lymphoma in persons exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides.47,48 Similarly, a recently published pooled analy- sis of cohort studies of farmers exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides reported a statistically significant, 36% increase in incidence (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–1.85) of dif- fuse large B-cell lymphoma.49

        • Silverseren@kbin.social
          1·
          10 months ago

          First one: Oxidative stress biomarkers, ie caused by most things and also are largely irrelevant? Biomarkers don’t actually correlate to actual risk increases in themselves.

          Second one: High long term exposure, ie being consistently doused in the stuff somehow, And is looking at meta-risk, so not actual risk of cancer development. Also, the 41% even therein is based on risk increase from the original numbers, not an absolute increase. Meaning the actual risk went from something akin to 0.4% over a lifetime to 0.55%. And this only applies to someone who has massive exposure repeatedly over a long period of time.

          Third one: Has nothing to do with science or evidence of any kind. Judges in courts don’t know anything about science, hence why scientific experts and organizations actually research this stuff.

          Fourth one: Is likely referencing studies already covered in #2, which again relies on actually understanding what the 41% is referring to.

          In short, a lot of media fearmongering about science would be less effective if the general public understood statistics better.