A lawyer who claims his client, a government union employee, got cancer from using the common weedkiller Roundup, is whining that his side didn't get to include "key evidence" from "the World Health Organisation" that it caused cancer.

Well, it wasn't key evidence, it was not evidence at all. It was instead just epidemiology - looking at columns of inputs and rows of effects in a spreadsheet and finding a cluster to declare statistical significance. It wasn't even the World Health Organisation, it was instead a tiny offshoot in France called the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which has actually been disavowed by WHO and the UN and every legitimate regulatory science body in the world numerous times, like when they tried to claim chewing gum causes cancer.

In the hands of activist anti-science mullahs who infested IARC starting in 2009, everything causes cancer. The group is so unabashedly on the take from lawyers and environmental groups that members were caught signing 'expert witness' agreements before IARC monographs were even published - and nothing changed. Journalists still cite them without qualification. The group made sure only fellow travelers against science are on panels by excluding any epidemiologist who ever consulted "for industry" while allowing consultants who are currently employed by environmental groups that are campaigning against products under review to be on panels advocating for warning labels on products. They even sign agreements in advance of monographs being published to be expert witnesses for lawyers suing over products IARC exploratory findings "suggest" "may" be "linked to" some disease or another.

Their methods are so shoddy that they consider 1 dose to be the same same as 10,000 doses. Their epidemiology can only create correlation about "hazards" but they stuff their press releases for sympathetic media outlets with talk about "risk", even though they can't determine about risk because the doses they include are 5 orders of magnitude. Or have no humans at all. Or are just created using surveys.

Lawyers love jury trials because those are often emotion-driven, science is not included. Science is why the weedkiller judgments have been gutted on appeal, where judges do include science.

IARC has no scientists, not even one. The key anti-Monsanto epidemiologist, Chris Portier, was even forced to admit under oath he never actually looked at any evidence on glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup.

In this case, the judge would not include controversial epidemiology claims that were derided by every scientific body in the world. Good for justice, bad for lawyers who want to buy new yachts.