>Because the jury are listening to experts from both sides of the case, and those experts are qualified to draw conclusions.
That doesn't answer the question. What makes you think that a jury of 6-12 laypeople are better able to determine the truth from 2 conflicting teams of experts, than a team of experts versed in the relevant field?
>Also "scientists" are not uniformly on the side of Monsanto/Bayer/glyphosate, as your comment seems to suggest.
They seem to be uniformly on the side of Monsanto/Bayer/glyphosate, according to wikipedia.
>The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity. [...]
there's more but I'm not going to quote the whole paragraph
Not going to quote the whole paragraph? The paragraph that goes on to say that there's an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other issues?
> The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment toxicology review in 2013 found that with regard to positive correlations between exposure to glyphosate formulations and risk of various cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, "the available data is contradictory and far from being convincing".[11] A meta-analysis published in 2014 identified an increased risk of NHL in workers exposed to glyphosate formulations.[12] In March 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans" (category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies.[8][13][14][15] In contrast, the European Food Safety Authority concluded in November 2015 that "the substance is unlikely to be genotoxic (i.e. damaging to DNA) or to pose a carcinogenic threat to humans", later clarifying that while carcinogenic glyphosate-containing formulations may exist, studies "that look solely at the active substance glyphosate do not show this effect."[16][17] In 2017, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) classified glyphosate as causing serious eye damage and as toxic to aquatic life, but did not find evidence implicating it as a carcinogen, a mutagen, toxic to reproduction, nor toxic to specific organs.[18]
Personally I trust a jury of 6-12 laypeople or the *European Chemicals Agency* over a company with a vested interest in keeping their product on the market.
> Not going to quote the whole paragraph? The paragraph that goes on to say that there's an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other issues?
I'm glad that you quoted the whole paragraph, but this seems to put a damper on your conclusion
>"the available data is contradictory and far from being convincing"
>Personally I trust a jury of 6-12 laypeople or the European Chemicals Agency over a company with a vested interest in keeping their product on the market.
Their conclusion is:
>the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) classified glyphosate as causing serious eye damage and as toxic to aquatic life, but did not find evidence implicating it as a carcinogen
That doesn't answer the question. What makes you think that a jury of 6-12 laypeople are better able to determine the truth from 2 conflicting teams of experts, than a team of experts versed in the relevant field?
>Also "scientists" are not uniformly on the side of Monsanto/Bayer/glyphosate, as your comment seems to suggest.
They seem to be uniformly on the side of Monsanto/Bayer/glyphosate, according to wikipedia.
>The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity. [...]
there's more but I'm not going to quote the whole paragraph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate