A bunch of intelligent adults with access to data, the facts, and a lot of free time?

Yes.

Jury selection doesn't filter for intelligence, so your description doesn't seem applicable.

I think you would be surprised.

Jury selection filters for people who vote, have long-term residence in a single location, have jobs that at least modestly allow jury service, and who actually show up to jury duty.

To make a sweeping generalization, those things all correlate with intelligence.

Anecdotally, the people I've met at jury selection in downtown Oakland, CA are not a representative sample of who you see outside the building.

And therefore have an investment in ruling correctly. I think you are correct and the appeal to expert opinion is not convincing.

As a non-American, the jury system feels alien. Advantages and disadvantages, I guess.

Except it clearly didn’t work in this case since the jury reached a conclusion that is fundamentally at odds with the conclusion reached by experts worldwide.

I’m baffled by how this is discussed on here as “well, maybe the jury was right”. We know that the jury wasn’t right.

> conclusion reached by experts worldwide.

A relevant group of the experts don't agree with the conclusion, namely those working for the IARC/WHO.

… and the IARC monograph on Roundup, in turn, has been dismissed universally by experts as both flawed and misleading. Amongst other things, they arbitrarily excluded high-quality studies that showed no evidence of carcinogenicity, and included at least one study claiming to show an effect but in reality failed to do so (it didn’t show dose dependence, which means the result is not statistically robust but rather a random fluke). The scientific consensus is completely on Monsanto’s side in this debate. Pretending otherwise is simply dishonest, there’s no other word for it.

If that is the case then it shouldn't be a problem to ask IARC to make a new monograph. That this doesn't happen tells me that the case isn't as simple here as you say.

Or maybe the experts are wrong?

What are the chances that 12 randomly selected members of the public are better at understanding biological mechanisms, judging statistical models and weighing evidence than people who have been studying these things for decades?

One group has an interest in making a living by working for multi-billion dollar corporations.

The other group is just the general public, who won't make a single penny from dedicating their lives to understanding the facts as they are presented.

The vast majority of experts in this field are not affiliated with Monsanto and don’t make a dime from it. They are the “general public”, except well informed, and have studied years to understand the relevant (complex) background to make an informed assessment. Non-experts may be dedicated but they simply don’t match years or even decades of rigorous studying on the subject.

This “all experts are in the pockets of big X corporation” is inaccurate and insulting. It’s just getting really tiring.

Yes, of course maybe all the experts are wrong, and the jury of lay people was right. But even if this unlikely case occurred here, do you really want to build legal cases and policy on such a fluke?