...
首页> 外文期刊>Outlooks on Pest Management >California's Glyphosate Judgement – Emotion, Bad Science and Greed Win the Day
【24h】

California's Glyphosate Judgement – Emotion, Bad Science and Greed Win the Day

机译:加州'他的草甘膦判断– 情感,糟糕的科学和贪婪赢得了这一天

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Jurors in California have awarded $289 million to a man who claimed that his cancer was due to Monsanto's herbicide glyphosate, even though that is biologically impossible. Even the judge acknowledged that there was no evidence of harm. Yet, trial lawyers manipulated a jury'semotions and the public's misunderstanding of science to score another jackpot verdict. The plaintiff, Dewayne Johnson, claims that glyphosate gave him non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a cancer that occurs when the immune system goes awry. There are three major problems with this claim. First, as statedabove, glyphosate does not cause cancer because it does not harm humans. It is an herbicide, so it is only toxic to plants. There is no known biological mechanism by which glyphosate could cause cancer, therefore its carcinogenicity is not even theoretically possible. That is why there isnot a single reputable public health agency that believes glyphosate causes cancer. The US Environmental Protection Agency, the World Health Organization, and the European Food Safety Authority all reject claims of any link. The only organization of note that rejects this scientific consensusis a group within the World Health Organization called the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Contrary to all evidence, the group insists that glyphosate causes cancer – along with bacon and hot water. The truth is that IARC is a fringe outlier, staunchly ideologicalrather than scientific, and rife with financial conflicts of interest. Christopher Portier, a special adviser to the IARC working group that examined glyphosate, was also working for the activist organization the Environmental Defense Fund and received $160,000 from trial lawyers whostood to profit handsomely if IARC declared glyphosate a carcinogen because they could file suits in lawsuit-happy California. IARC's credibility has been so thoroughly shattered that Congress recently pulled its funding. Secondly, although the root cause of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is unknown,that does not mean its etiology is completely open to speculation. Lymphomas originate from white blood cells, so scientists believe that autoimmune disease or chronic infections play a role. Just because the plaintiff's attorneys can fool a jury into believing that glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin'slymphoma does not mean there is any scientific evidence – and there is not. Thirdly, glyphosate has been off-patent for 18 years, and about 40% of the world's glyphosate is made in China. So, why pick on Monsanto when several different companies could have supplied the glyphosate theplaintiff used?
机译:加利福尼亚州的陪审员向一个声称他的癌症的男子授予28900万美元,因为他是由于孟山的除草剂草甘膦,即使是生物学上不可能。即使是法官也承认没有危害的证据。然而,审判律师操纵了陪审团的审计和公众对科学的误解,以获得另一个累积奖励。原告Dewayne Johnson声称草甘膦给了他非霍奇金的淋巴瘤,当免疫系统变黑时发生的癌症。这一索赔有三个主要问题。首先,如同陈述,草甘膦没有引起癌症,因为它不会伤害人类。它是一种除草剂,所以它只是对植物有毒。没有已知的生物学机制,草甘膦可能导致癌症,因此其致癌性甚至理论上是可能的。这就是为什么没有一个信誉象败的公共卫生机构,相信草甘膦导致癌症。美国环境保护局,世界卫生组织和欧洲食品安全管理局所有拒绝任何联系的索赔。唯一的注意组织拒绝了世界卫生组织内部的一个众议院,称为国际癌症研究机构(IARC)。与所有证据相反,该小组坚持认为草甘膦导致癌症–和培根和热水一起。事实是,IARC是一个边缘异常,而不是科学的傲慢性,而且与财务利益冲突习惯。克里斯托弗·帕特蒂尔(Christopher Portier)是IARC工作组的特殊顾问,该顾问调查草甘膦,也为Activist组织的环境国防基金工作,如果IARC宣布草甘膦申请致癌物质,则从审判律师从审判律师收到160,000美元,因为他们可以提起诉讼诉讼 - 加利福尼亚州快乐。 IARC的可信度已经如此彻底破坏了国会最近拉动其资金。其次,尽管非霍奇金淋巴瘤的根本原因是未知的,但并不意味着其病因完全开放到猜测。淋巴瘤源自白细胞,因此科学家认为自身免疫性疾病或慢性感染发挥作用。仅仅是因为原告的律师可以欺骗陪审团,相信草甘膦导致非霍奇金的人不言而喻是有任何科学证据–并且没有。第三,草甘膦已被剥夺18岁,在中国制造了约40%的草甘膦。那么,为什么当几个不同的公司都可以提供使用的草甘膦的草图

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号