California’s glyphosate ruling crosses ethical lines.
A California court is not peer-reviewed science. What we are having here is the legal system unethically crossing the lines into scientific endeavor. If you wanted the courts to be fair, how about place in the courts a bunch of subject-matter experts.
You can tell people that dihydrogen monoxide is an absolutely dangerous chemical that caused a person’s cancer and that every single person that had cancer was exposed to dihydrogen monoxide.
(dihydrogen monoxide is the chemical name for water) The problem is, when you don’t know what science is, you make bad decisions because you were uninformed and uneducated in the subject matter.
We do not have courts make a medical diagnosis, we do not have courts making decisions on how airplanes fly and are designed, we do not have courts making mathematical decisions for engineering, but apparently we now have courts determining scientific matters when it comes to chemicals.
This is not how science works folks! Science is not an ad populum endeavor, it is based upon empirical evidence and years of peer-reviewed research. To use a court case based upon the opinion of non subject matter experts to determine the outcome of what a chemical is or is not responsible for is absolutely pseudoscience and should hold absolutely no grounds. This is a slippery slope and by doing this they are simply adding grease to it.