Recently a California jury awarded a couple $2 Billion+ in damages from Bayer/Monsanto after they sued the company over their non-Hodgkins Lymphoma that they attributed to their long-term use of RoundUp. It's the third such suit of this nature where a CA jury has decided against Monsanto/Bayer. There's other such trials on the docket in other states coming up, so we'll see what happens there.
What confuses and confounds me about this is, how are juries awarding fault in these cases? Glyphosphate, the active ingredient in RoundUp, has been extensively studied in toxicology experiments and the results have overwhelmingly ranged from "no effect" to "a possible effect, maybe, but it seems to be negligible." Yes, I am aware of the Seralini paper, but I'm also aware that there were lots of issues with that study, not the least of which is using a rat breed known to spontaneously develop cancer to see if a glyphosphate causes cancer.
So my question in all this is, how does a jury award a judgement when the scientific evidence doesn't show there to be a connection?