It only introduces the aspect that it might be associated to kidney disease.
Everything is toxic to humans at the right dose, even water.
It sounds like they evaluated the chemical itself but didn't evaluate what could happen to the chemical once it was in the environment.
I bet that's most of evaluations and it's probably not even required to take into consideration the environment and how it can change the response...
Of course Monsanto is putting its finger on the scales of both the research that is done and the research that is seen but they are not some sort of omnipotent evil.
Has their marketing stance changed? Or does Glyphosate continue to be marketed as a relatively safe solution?
Roundup is still for sale at Home Depot, they sell massive quantities of it every day.
>"We are sympathetic to Mr. Johnson and his family," Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge said in a statement following the verdict. "Today's decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews ... support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson's cancer."
>He confirmed the company will appeal the decision "and continue to vigorously defend this product, which has a 40-year history of safe use and continues to be a vital, effective, and safe tool for farmers and others."
"Safe and effective"
To a layman, this may be heard as “Roundup can cause cancer.”
To a scientist, this may simply mean “There isn’t sufficient data to make a strong claim.”
Same words, two very different interpretations. That’s why lawyers fight so hard for jury selection.
E.g., It could have been a statement based on a single study, meaning they can’t make that claim based on that single study. But there may be less uncertainty (meaning stronger claims is more reasonable) when you look at it in the totality of data.
Now I think Monsanto still has a duty to determine what safe levels of exposure are, but it’s important to not extrapolate this level of risk to the average consumer.
Making sweeping statements like “The US lacks effective regulation and the precautionary principle with respect to chemical safety, agriculture, and food safety.” tells me nothing other than your opinion.
It's used because it's effective broad-spectrum herbicide. My understanding it's quite a bit less toxic than its predecessors, and I understand there's no equivalent replacement on the horizon.
IIRC, the problem was they marketed it as practically nontoxic to humans, which is definitely not the case.