i.e. you're saying that according to science Roundup does not cause cancer?
Could an additive cause cancer? Maybe, but it's pretty hard to argue that Bayer intentionally used an easily replacible carcinogenic surfectants to be evil.
It is also grade 2A by the WHO, which basically means it may cause cancer in humans.
No, this is patently false. Out of all expert consortia, only IARC (= WHO) has reached this conclusion, and it was universally criticised for both the way they report risks (which is highly misleading), and the fact that their publication in turn suppressed contradictory results. All other relevant expert consortia state that the evidence does not support the conclusion of glyphosate and/or Roundup being carcinogenic when used correctly, despite the existence of decades worth of data which should show carcinogenicity, if it had an appreciable effect. “Most studies”, especially high-quality ones, show absolutely no effect.
If there were, I could see a scenario where incorrect usage was so likely or unavoidable that it becomes negligence on Bayer's part.
I don't know if that's the case here; however.
The question here is whether Bayer /Monsanto knowingly used a carcinogen that nearly every health org says is not a carcinogen.
Justice is supposed to serve the people, it is not a rule-based programming language, there is a human element behind it. That's why we have magistrates, who make sure the rules are properly applied, and juries, who make sure the decision matches what the people want.
So in this case, magistrates decided that what Bayer did was punishable and the people, represented by the jury, decided that Bayer are assholes and definitely deserve it. I don't agree but it is, I think, an important component of a democratic justice system.
Of course, Bayer will appeal. So maybe this time, science will prevail. I hope so.