News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on California jury says Bayer must pay $2B to couple in Roundup cancer trial. Parent comment

Re:California jury says Bayer must pay $2B to couple in Roun... by jlarocco on Monday May 13, 2019 @06:49PM (#19904810)
You haven't given any evidence to back up your claim. What in particular makes you believe the jury in this case wasn't equipped to answer the questions asked of them?

No doubt it's complicated, but to play devil's advocate, if a company can't demonstrate to a lay person that a chemical isn't dangerous and how to use it safely, then perhaps they shouldn't sell the chemical to the general public, and maybe should even be punished for doing so.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California jury says Bayer must pay $2B to couple in Roun... by lordlimecat on Tuesday May 14, 2019 @08:03AM (#19908712)
>given any evidence to back up your claim. What in particular makes you believe the jury in this case wasn't equipped to answer the questions asked of them?

Given the staggering consensus on glyphosates safety-- the outcome of the case would make me say that.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California jury says Bayer must pay $2B to couple in Roun... by gamblor956 on Tuesday May 14, 2019 @10:28AM (#19909803)
Glyphosates are known to be unsafe so it seems like the jury got it right...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California jury says Bayer must pay $2B to couple in Roun... by lordlimecat on Tuesday May 21, 2019 @10:18AM (#19970360)
Known by whom? The majority of government agencies and international NGOs disagree with you.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California jury says Bayer must pay $2B to couple in Roun... by ende on Monday May 13, 2019 @07:49PM (#19905276)
You have the burden of proof reversed.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California jury says Bayer must pay $2B to couple in Roun... by jlarocco on Monday May 13, 2019 @08:51PM (#19905697)
That response doesn't make any sense.

I didn't agree or disagree with, I simply asked the OP to explain their reasoning.

And I also disagree that the burden of proof would be on the "other side". The status quo is trial by jury. That will never change if nobody wants to explain why they think it's bad or what would work better.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California jury says Bayer must pay $2B to couple in Roun... by technothrasher on Tuesday May 14, 2019 @07:10AM (#19908454)
I believe the burden of proof response was in relation to the statement, "if a company can't demonstrate to a lay person that a chemical isn't dangerous".

That would be asking them to "prove a negative" (really, it's proving a universal claim, not a negative claim, but 'negative' is the popular tagline). This cannot ever be done. All you can do is show that there is no credible evidence that it is dangerous. At the point, the burden of proof lies with the the claim that it is, in fact, dangerous.

[ Parent | on HN ]