This op-ed was authored by ATRA’s Vice-president Lauren Sheets Jarrell and was originally published by the Real Clear Health.
In the MAHA era of bizarre claims based on bogus science, it’s increasingly difficult to know what to believe, which products are safe, and who to tune out.
It’s not just RFK Jr. inexplicably ice plunging in jeans, either. Sure, he may be the plaintiff bar’s sweetheart, a trial lawyer by trade, and made millions suing based on made-for-litigation science — but really, he just brought a long-festering issue into the mainstream.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court has a chance to provide some clarity about product safety. A Missouri state court is trying to punish a company for not including information on a product’s label that, legally, they cannot include. The makers of Roundup weedkiller were found liable in Missouri for their “failure to warn” about the alleged carcinogenic nature of the glyphosate-based product.
The problem is that scientific evidence doesn’t support that claim. Study after study says glyphosate is safe, including those conducted by EPA. The agency said outright it won’t approve a label for glyphosate with a cancer warning since that would directly contradict their findings.
However, if you listen only to trial lawyers and their coordinated campaign sowing public fear, you’d think Roundup is a highly dangerous product. Now it’s up to SCOTUS to confirm in Monsanto v. Durnell later this month that federal law and regulations addressing essential warnings and labeling guidelines can’t be overturned by inconsistent state court rulings based on debunked science.
Despite the lack of sound scientific support, mountains of lawsuits claim glyphosate exposure causes cancer. Those lawsuits are based on a single, controversial study from the International Agency for Research on Cancer whose findings starkly contrast hundreds of others stating the weedkiller is safe.
This study was advised by an “invited specialist,” Christopher Portier, who had a six-figure contract with law firms suing over Roundup. After Portier was brought on, the study was altered in several ways to reach a desired outcome, which ultimately resulted in IARC declaring glyphosate “probably carcinogenic.”
But this move is straight out of the trial lawyer playbook. When existing science doesn’t support a theory for a lawsuit, they work with their network of litigation labs to whip up a study to back their claims, spurned by the rapid growth of “pay-to-publish” journals — with many lacking meaningful peer review. Girded with faux legitimacy, lawyers use their new studies to revive failing litigation, sway public opinion, and influence policymakers.
Read the full piece by Lauren Sheets Jarrell in the Real Clear Health here.
