Innovative hearings continue regarding presentations of scientific data regarding alleged toxins.  The newest example is this week “science week” regarding lawsuits related to Monsanto’s glysophate. A summary of day 1 is available through a March 6, 2018 article at LAW360 (paywall). In short, plaintiff’s experts were on the stand. For a plaintiff friendly preview, see this March 5, 2018 article at the Guardian. I’ve not found an open access, defense friendly preview.

A “live updates” page is online at https://usrtk.org/live-updates-monsanto-hearing/. The source appears to be plaintiff friendly at first glance, but I’ve not studied it in any detail.

One could say many things about the hearing, the cases, the claims, the science and the law. But, for now, I’ll confine myself to noting that one fairly novel aspect of the hearing is that it is taking place before both a federal judge and a state judge court judge. Kudos to the judges for communicating and undertaking some joint efforts instead of proceeding on completely separate paths. The following excerpt from LAW360 provides the bare bones overview:

“An epidemiologist and a hematopathologist testified during the six-hour hearing before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, who’s presiding over the federal multidistrict litigation, and California Superior Court Judge Ioana Petrou, who is adjudicating similar cases in state court. The experts testified that there was statistically significant evidence that people are more likely to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after prolonged exposed to glyphosate, the primary active ingredient in Monsanto’s top-selling weed killer.”