Source: POLITICO'S MORNING AGRICULTURE, 7/11/18

A federal judge is allowing a major class-action suit against Monsanto to go forward, even as he cast doubts on the credibility of the evidence offered by experts on behalf of hundreds of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients. The 68-page decision comes after he heard weeks of dense testimony from scientific experts on both sides of the case. The series of hearings was before a judge rather than a jury, but was an important aspect of whether the case had enough to proceed, yours truly reported.

The plaintiffs contend that Monsanto's flagship product, the weedkiller Roundup, caused them to develop cancer and the company never warned them about the risk.

The lead up: Attorneys for both sides called on their own scientific experts such as epidemiologists to testify throughout the spring about the link between the weedkiller and cancer. Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California had to determine if the experts' analysis was solid enough to make a case.

He ruled Tuesday that it was a "close question," but that plaintiffs had presented enough evidence "from which a reasonable jury could conclude that glyphosate can cause NHL at human-relevant doses." Still, he felt like the evidence was "shaky" and said any weaknesses will be exposed at trial when a jury considers the evidence.

Tough talk: Chhabria was scathing in his remarks in the ruling. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs face a "daunting challenge" in the next phase of litigation because the evidence between exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in humans "seems rather weak," he wrote.

He also said it was a mistake for experts to heavily rely on the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer assessment that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans." IARC was making a public health assessment, while a jury has to use a different standard to reach a verdict, he said.

What's next: Attorneys representing the plaintiffs now have to make a direct connection between each patient's diagnosis and Roundup. But Tuesday's development in the case may push them to consider a settlement or revise their legal strategy. And after all, Chhabria won't be the one making the final call; that decision is reserved for a jury.