6

In this report by Reuters the layer for Dewayne Johnson stated:

Brent Wisner, a lawyer for Johnson, in a statement said jurors for the first time had seen internal company documents “proving that Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate and specifically Roundup could cause cancer.” He called on Monsanto to “put consumer safety first over profits.”

Source: Reuters: Monsanto ordered to pay $289 million in world's first Roundup cancer trial

Did Monsanto know that roundup caused cancer? Which internal documents indicate that this is the case?

Edit

I'm more interested to see if Brent Wisner was lying about internal documents or not. Are these documents publicly available after the court case?

Improve this question
13
  • 7
    There is no compelling evidence that Roundup causes cancer (see skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41997/…), therefore, according to the claim, Monsanto would have elements that the scientific community doesn't know about.
    – Samuel Churlaud
    Aug 16, 2018 at 21:27
  • 2
    That is exactly my question in that court case were there internal documents of Monsanto that indicated that Monanto knew roundup caused cancer that are not widely available but were shown as evidence.
    – Voltage Spike
    Aug 16, 2018 at 23:01
  • 9
    It needs to be noted that, according to press reports, the guy was exposed to Roundup at levels far above "normal" -- the guy virtually bathed in it. Few investigations of the carcinogenic properties of the chemical would assume such high exposure levels, so many study results may be irrelevant.
    – Daniel R Hicks
    Aug 17, 2018 at 0:21
  • 6
    I think a better form of the question would be closer to just "Did Monsanto have internal documents indicating that Roundup/glyphosate was carcinogenic?" The current form, "Did Monsanto know that Roundup caused cancer?" is at least close to a loaded question that presupposes "Roundup causes cancer", while the separate question of whether Monsanto had evidence of it does a better job of being neutral as well as more clearly distinguishing this from the prior question.
    – Kamil Drakari
    Aug 17, 2018 at 17:38
  • 2
    A jury decision doesn't make it so, and even the lawyers wording doesn't establish that it is probably so. Since it's not established, IMO, I'm not sure how one could show that they knew the non-established fact was fact.
    – PoloHoleSet
    Aug 17, 2018 at 18:22

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .