Does Monsanto compensate glyphosate victims $289 million to show that GM is harmful?

Netizens recently said: "recently, a US court ruled that Monsanto paid 289 million US dollars to glyphosate victims and was responsible for cancer caused by its products." Glyphosate, one of the important partners of GM, has been transferred to claim that it is safer than salt, and they have listed public doubts about glyphosate as the top ten rumors to maintain that they have so far had no evidence that GM is harmful. "

After reading this statement, it seems that the penalty for glyphosate means that the evidence that GM is harmful is conclusive! However, this logic does not make sense, and there is actually a loophole in the US court's decision today that the gardener was fined Monsanto $289 million for cancer caused by using Monsanto glyphosate. Let's review it and see if the decision can stand up to scrutiny!

The evidence cited by the court in this regard is the No. 112 carcinogen monograph issued by the International Cancer Organization (IARC) under the World Health Organization in 2015, in which glyphosate is listed as a carcinogen that is likely to cause cancer.

In addition, let's take a look at the research conclusions of major research institutions in the world. At present, relevant studies in the European Union, including China, have not yet demonstrated the conclusion that glyphosate causes cancer.

At present, both the court and the gardeners suing Monsanto have concluded that glyphosate is suspected of causing cancer, so they decided to sue Monsanto.

However, there is a big problem, such as paraquat, which is currently banned in our country. If farmers are poisoned by the use of paraquat, should the producers or inventors of paraquat be held responsible? Certainly not! Because there have been many such cases in our country. So can the manufacturer win if someone who has used paraquat has cancer? Certainly not! Because there is no evidence that paraquat has anything to do with cancer, paraquat poisoning will not settle claims, let alone because of cancer.

In the case of glyphosate, the most important thing is to prove that the patient does have cancer because of glyphosate, and that the gardener does not follow the instructions of glyphosate and secretly increases the dose beyond the range, which leads to cancer. This is the most crucial point to win in the end. However, this point can not be proved.

Second, is the gardener's cancer caused by individual or other reasons? I am afraid this is not easy to prove, because there are many factors that cause cancer, such as rural self-squeezed peanut oil, is it because gardeners squeeze too much peanut oil? (joke) there are so many similar factors that if glyphosate cannot be linked to carcinogenesis, it may be really difficult to win the case in the end. Because there are so many Americans and Chinese who use glyphosate herbicides around the world, if it is said that glyphosate causes cancer, it should have attracted attention a long time ago. Now that so much research has been done, it has been concluded that it is suspected of causing cancer!

When it comes to self-squeezed peanut oil, China has already listed it as a first-class carcinogen, so if you often buy pressed peanut oil and eventually cause cancer, who should pay for it? Who can say whether cancer is caused by eating more peanut oil?

As one of the partners of genetically modified crops, this glyphosate case has also aroused the interest of a large number of friends. Scientific Xingnong believes that people should look at the matter rationally, even if glyphosate does cause cancer, there are still many GM tags to replace it, and there are other types of herbicide-resistant genes that can be developed and utilized. At this point, this decision has no effect on transgenic. So don't associate everything with genetically modified genes, just look at the problem objectively and rationally.

While Science Xingnong believes that the verdict of this case is by no means the final outcome, as for how the case develops in the end, let the incident prove something.

Here is science to promote agriculture, welcome to add attention, with you to grow knowledge.