Does the $289 million compensation awarded to a glyphosate victim from Monsanto prove that GMOs are harmful?
A netizen recently said: "Recently, a US court ruled that Monsanto must pay $289 million in compensation to a glyphosate victim, holding it responsible for the cancer caused by its product. Glyphosate is one of the important companions of GMOs, and pro-GMO advocates claim it is safer than table salt. They list public doubts about glyphosate as the number one of the top ten rumors, in order to maintain their argument that there has not been a single case of GMOs being harmful to date."
Reading such a statement, it seems that the ruling on glyphosate means the evidence that GMOs are harmful is conclusive! However, this logic really does not hold up. In today's case where a US court ruled that a gardener developed cancer from using Monsanto's glyphosate and ultimately ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million in compensation, there are actually considerable loopholes! Let us review it below and see whether this ruling can withstand scrutiny!
In this regard, the evidence cited by the court is the Monograph No. 112 on carcinogens published in 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) under the World Health Organization, which listed glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. Everyone should look carefully: in that conclusion it is "probable" carcinogenicity, not that glyphosate is definitively carcinogenic!
In addition, let us look at the research conclusions of major research institutions around the world. At present, relevant studies in the European Union and in our country have not demonstrated a conclusion that glyphosate causes cancer.
At present, both the court and the gardener suing Monsanto adopted the conclusion that glyphosate is suspected of causing cancer, and therefore decided to sue Monsanto.
However, there is a big problem here. For example, paraquat is currently banned in our country. If a farmer is poisoned by using paraquat, should the manufacturer or inventor of paraquat bear responsibility? Definitely not! Because many such cases have already appeared in our country. Then, if someone who has used paraquat develops cancer and sues the manufacturer, can they win? Definitely not! Because there is no evidence showing what relationship paraquat has with cancer. Paraquat poisoning does not even lead to compensation, let alone cancer.
In the glyphosate case, the most critical point is to prove that the patient really developed cancer because of glyphosate, and that the gardener did not follow the instructions for using glyphosate and privately increased the dose beyond the range, thereby causing cancer. This is the most critical point for ultimately winning. However, this point is not very easy to prove.
Second, was the gardener's cancer caused by individual factors or other reasons? This is probably also hard to prove, because there are many factors that induce cancer. For example, in rural areas, home-pressed peanut oil - could the gardener have developed cancer because of consuming too much home-pressed peanut oil? (Joking.) There are many similar factors. If glyphosate cannot be linked to cancer, then this case will probably really be difficult to win. Because there are so many Americans and Chinese people around the world who use glyphosate herbicide. If glyphosate really caused cancer, attention should have been drawn to it long ago. Yet after so much research to date, the conclusion is still only "suspected" carcinogenicity!
Speaking of home-pressed peanut oil, our country has long listed it as a Group 1 carcinogen. So if someone who frequently buys and consumes pressed peanut oil ultimately develops cancer, who should they seek compensation from? And who can clearly say whether the cancer was caused by eating too much peanut oil?
As one of the companions of genetically modified crops, this glyphosate case has also aroused the interest of many friends who oppose GMOs. Science Xingnong believes that everyone should still view this matter rationally. Even if glyphosate really causes cancer, there are still many GMO labels to replace it, and there are also other types of herbicide-resistant genes that can be developed and utilized. In this regard, this ruling has no impact on GMOs. So do not drag everything together with GMOs. Just view issues objectively, rationally and calmly.
And Science Xingnong believes that the judgment in this case is by no means the final outcome. As for how the case ultimately develops, let events prove some of it.
This is Science Xingnong. You are welcome to add a follow and learn together with us.