In the MAHA era of bizarre claims based on bogus science, it’s increasingly difficult to know what to believe, which products are safe, and who to tune out.
It’s not just RFK Jr. inexplicably ice plunging in jeans, either. Sure, he may be the plaintiff bar’s sweetheart, a trial lawyer by trade, and made millions suing based on made-for-litigation science — but really, he just brought a long-festering issue into the mainstream.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court has a chance to provide some clarity about product safety. A Missouri state court is trying to punish a company for not including information on a product’s label that, legally, they cannot include. The makers of Roundup weedkiller were found liable in Missouri for their “failure to warn” about the alleged carcinogenic nature of the glyphosate-based product.
The problem is that scientific evidence doesn’t support that claim. Study after study says glyphosate is safe, including those conducted by EPA. The agency said outright it won’t approve a label for glyphosate with a cancer warning since that would directly contradict their findings.
However, if you listen only to trial lawyers and their coordinated campaign sowing public fear, you’d think Roundup is a highly dangerous product. Now it’s up to SCOTUS to confirm in Monsanto v. Durnell later this month that federal law and regulations addressing essential warnings and labeling guidelines can’t be overturned by inconsistent state court rulings based on debunked science.
Despite the lack of sound scientific support, mountains of lawsuits claim glyphosate exposure causes cancer. Those lawsuits are based on a single, controversial study from the International Agency for Research on Cancer whose findings starkly contrast hundreds of others stating the weedkiller is safe.
This study was advised by an “invited specialist,” Christopher Portier, who had a six-figure contract with law firms suing over Roundup. After Portier was brought on, the study was altered in several ways to reach a desired outcome, which ultimately resulted in IARC declaring glyphosate “probably carcinogenic.”
But this move is straight out of the trial lawyer playbook. When existing science doesn’t support a theory for a lawsuit, they work with their network of litigation labs to whip up a study to back their claims, spurned by the rapid growth of “pay-to-publish” journals — with many lacking meaningful peer review. Girded with faux legitimacy, lawyers use their new studies to revive failing litigation, sway public opinion, and influence policymakers.
We saw this last year with claims tying autism to prenatal Tylenol use. Trial lawyers’ national, multi-district litigation against the makers of Tylenol was floundering after a federal judge tossed their bedrock study, finding it unreliable, cherry-picked, and misleading. Then, just like that, their ally in the Trump administration called a press conference to reveal a “new” study, conveniently published just in time for an appellate briefing.
While most find the Tylenol claims laughable, it caused significant stress and confusion nonetheless among expecting mothers to hear both the President and his Health Secretary claim that one of the few medications approved for prenatal use, could in fact cause harm to their unborn child. Meanwhile, leading medical groupsmaintain that acetaminophen is safe to take during pregnancy. The confusion for parents of young children brought by junk science continues now with claims around vaccine safety.
New trends in made-for-litigation science extend to climate change “attribution science” or “extreme-event attribution.” One Oxford climate expert acknowledged she talks “a lot with lawyers” about how to use attribution science as a litigation tool. An attempt earlier this year to include attribution science in a judicial reference guide was foiled once state attorneys general took notice and called for action. Despite that success, junk science in litigation remains prevalent.
Our government agencies have a statutory duty to protect the public and the Supreme Court can help rein in junk science and make it clear that product labels and warnings must reflect comprehensive scientific evaluations.
It’s crucial for us all to be able to trust that the information we’re provided about the products we use in our daily lives and around our families is based on sound science and not fearmongering.
Families have enough to worry about without having trial lawyers manipulate public information with litigation-driven science that sows confusion and pads their own pockets while the rest of us pay.
Lauren Sheets Jarrell is vice president and counsel for the American Tort Reform Association.
