[tptacek]

They're not making up the weight of the scientific evidence there.

[improv]

Why do you think the jury ruled the way it did then?

[bumby]

It’s possible the jury is not scientifically literate. One of the damning emails said “you can’t say Roundup doesn’t cause cancer.”

To a layman, this may be heard as “Roundup can cause cancer.”

To a scientist, this may simply mean “There isn’t sufficient data to make a strong claim.”

Same words, two very different interpretations. That’s why lawyers fight so hard for jury selection.

[improv]

Why is Monsanto continuing to make such unscientific claims then?

[bumby]

I can’t speak for them, but it’s possible they have more data outside of that specific instance. I don’t know the context of that previous email statement.

E.g., It could have been a statement based on a single study, meaning they can’t make that claim based on that single study. But there may be less uncertainty (meaning stronger claims is more reasonable) when you look at it in the totality of data.