...plain and simple. Plus, there is this "rooting for the underdog" sort of effect that juries can get, which in general isn't a bad thing, but it is flat out pathological when you ask them to make actual epidemiological conclusions with (for many) barely a highschool education.
This is an important factor to consider with regards to the glyphosate debate. When IARC announced in June 2015 that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic to humans, Kate Guyton, a toxicologist and lead author of the IARC monograph, stated that because the evidence in laboratory animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, this places [glyphosate] in Group 2A [of probable carcinogens]. It was later revealed that IARC scientists had removed findings from studies that concluded glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic before publishing the final version. The edits were made in the monographs chapter on animal studies, which crucially informed IARCs assessment that glyphosate causes cancer.
The debate sparked by IARCs evaluation highlights why human studies are so essential. Indeed, one key studywhose initial findings were not included in IARCs literature review due to their internal prohibition on considering unpublished datais the Agricultural Health Study, a long-term observational analysis of the health effects of herbicides on 89,000 farmers and their families in Iowa and North Carolina. Running since 1993, the AHS has consistently failed to find that glyphosate use is linked with increased risk of cancer. Parts of the study, whose failure to find any evidence of glyphosates carcinogenicity was already well-known among IARC staff, were finally published earlier in November.
Read this. Please.
https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/years-of-testing-shows-glyphosate-isnt-carcinogenic.html