Court cases are not good ways to determine science. In a particularly egregious case in the 1980s, for example, a jury returned a verdict for a defendant in which it was claimed that a head injury in a car accident led to lung cancer.

Scientifically, there is no good evidence that Roundup causes cancer.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/17/cancer-juries-scienti...

Please don’t cite snopes, it’s the worst possible citation you can give.

Here’s a better citation: IARC (the World Health Organization’s cancer research division) conducted a review with 20 international experts of all the publicly available research on glyphosate and found that it does indeed likely cause cancer: https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-gly...

court cases like that don't mean anything, they're super biased by what lawyers make up as a narrative.

Whether roundup is safe or not is not clear to me, but the decision of 12 unwilling laymen with no access to independent research tools is certainly not credible.

I did not say anything about the capability of the jury but was talking about the evidence that was brought to court.