My favorite weed (and everything else) killer, Roundup, was the subject of two interesting blurbs, presented side-by-side in the local birdcage liner.
In one story, Bayer proposes to pay 8 BILLION dollars to a number of claimants who say that Roundup made them sick, and in the next column, the EPA wouldn't even approve warning labels for Roundup, based on an international body's conclusion that the active ingredient in Roundup is "probably carcinogenic." (Hence the "International Agency for Research on Cancer" is probably worthless).
I have long been an advocate of a "Science Court" or some such thing, whose sole purpose would be to manage the science of determining whether one thing or another is actually harmful.
In our current system, we allow juries of retired postal workers and housewives to decide whether a certain product caused cancer in a Plaintiff who was also exposed to hundreds of other products and chemicals at the times in question.
The science itself is not that difficult, but our legal system makes it PROFITABLE to push bullshit theories of causation, and Defendant companies often pay millions (or in this case BILLIONS) to settle cases based on extremely questionable scientific claims of harm.
We need a Science Court, with power to make binding decisions on the harmfulness of substances that are subject to such claims. The other courts and juries can argue about whether the plaintiff was really harmed by THAT stuff, and whether the Defendant knew or should have known about the harm, but the science itself should be separated out for a SCIENTIFIC investigation, rather than a dog & pony show for a hundred different juries in 50 states.
In one story, Bayer proposes to pay 8 BILLION dollars to a number of claimants who say that Roundup made them sick, and in the next column, the EPA wouldn't even approve warning labels for Roundup, based on an international body's conclusion that the active ingredient in Roundup is "probably carcinogenic." (Hence the "International Agency for Research on Cancer" is probably worthless).
I have long been an advocate of a "Science Court" or some such thing, whose sole purpose would be to manage the science of determining whether one thing or another is actually harmful.
In our current system, we allow juries of retired postal workers and housewives to decide whether a certain product caused cancer in a Plaintiff who was also exposed to hundreds of other products and chemicals at the times in question.
The science itself is not that difficult, but our legal system makes it PROFITABLE to push bullshit theories of causation, and Defendant companies often pay millions (or in this case BILLIONS) to settle cases based on extremely questionable scientific claims of harm.
We need a Science Court, with power to make binding decisions on the harmfulness of substances that are subject to such claims. The other courts and juries can argue about whether the plaintiff was really harmed by THAT stuff, and whether the Defendant knew or should have known about the harm, but the science itself should be separated out for a SCIENTIFIC investigation, rather than a dog & pony show for a hundred different juries in 50 states.
