So let's say that when it all shakes out, the weight of the evidence is that glyphosate is probably not carcinogenic.
And let's say that when it all shakes out, the clear evidence is that Monsanto buried studies that provided evidence glyphosate might be carcinogenic.
What then?
One of the huge problems facing medical science is that companies are really good at only releasing info that makes their newest, latest, most expensive drug/herbicide/pesticide look good and hiding all negative experimental outcomes. So there's a massive gulf between the results of all studies conducted and the results of all studies published.
One solution is that only pre-registered studies can be considered as evidence and that all registered studies must publish their conclusions. Some peer-reviewed publications are moving to that model, but it would be amazing to see it established as a legal precedent. That would shake the foundations of Big Pharma and Big Agri.
I'm not sure that's even a legally possible outcome and, if possible, whether or not it would sustain an appeal. It would be a great outcome though.
