Looks like 16+ briefs filed today in Monsanto v Durnell. Few actually addressing the question before the court. Glyphosate toxicology is not being adjudicated. Pretty crazy. www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docke...
Fear “forever chemicals” on your produce?
Demand better science and call out negligence when you see it. Stand up for toxicological science, not EWG or Scientific American takes. substack.com/@allthingsto...
* www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-w...
Nice to wake up to a concise explainer, “Toxicologists Share the Truth About the Dirty Dozen List.” That said, I’d have more than a few caveats and probably a few additional blurbs.
www.eatingwell.com/toxicologist...
Bulone v. Monsanto Company et al, No. 3:2020cv03719 - Document 88 (N.D. Cal. 2024) law.justia.com/cases/federa...
Glyphosate: Epidemiology Review of Zhang et al. (2019) and Leon et al. (2019) publications for Response to Comments on the Proposed Interim Decision
www.epa.gov/sites/defaul...
Maybe journalists could do better as when 4 Johns Hopkins Livable Future authors cite Zhang’s meta‑analysis, note that EPA HED and Judge Chhabria found serious methodological flaws, calling it effectively 'junk science.' Yet outlets like SciAm, CNN, and The Guardian still report it & omit ECHA/EFSA.
DPA §707 immunity is narrow covering compliance with gov’t production orders, not preexisting torts. It doesn’t erase Roundup claims (design defect, failure to warn, negligence). Executive orders can’t “magically” grant immunity—claims to the contrary reflect journalistic negligence.
Finally, DPA §707 immunity is narrow covering compliance with gov’t production orders, not preexisting torts. It doesn’t erase Roundup claims (design defect, failure to warn, negligence). Executive orders can’t “magically” grant immunity, there is widespread journalistic negligence here. Fact Check
By highlighting corporate lobbying, jury awards, and MAHA activists & omitting the complexity of toxicology, the role of other expert bodies, the litigation infrastructure on the anti-glyphosate side, the piece turns a nuanced scientific and legal controversy into a simple morality play.
I’d disagree. Classic lies of omission shouldn’t be the bar by which professional journalism is judged adequate, when truth, fairness, independence, & accountability are routinely missing in glyphosate coverage. The IARC Monograph program cannot be compared to world regulatory authorities.
PFAS ≠C8 open.substack.com/pub/brianhma... #fleeting post here
Vaccines, Diet, and Farming
My messaging about acute toxicology being extrapolated to far more important endpoints (i.e., “safer than caffeine”) may have been lost, but it’s still a fun read.
www.thebulwark.com/p/robert-ken...
NotebookLM graphics can take pages of text and references and turn them into a surprisingly good visual that captures the main points I’d try to make. A picture really can be worth a 1000 words & sometimes it makes clear that the confident takes on social media missed the point.
Cancer risks from DNA fragments in vaccines, formaldehyde, radiation, or chemicals? I saw all of these this morning. A critical thinker might ask how and how much. Exposure, mechanism, & probabilities matter. Quantitative risks by numbers not nouns.
substack.com/@allthingsto...
Monsanto v Durnell, Glyphosate, RoundUp
SCOTUS 24-1068 -Nine (9) amicus briefs were filed 2Mar26. Arguments set for Monday, 27Apr26. Far more to argue.
supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?...
Durnell v Monsanto, Glyphosate
I've uploaded several rulings, briefs, and some of my additional writings, then asked for a “graphic summary,” and it wasn’t awful. I’ll expand on Substack in time, especially regarding monograph program limitations compared to regulatory consensus.
Service before self
I feel the weight of current events & hope for the safety of all our men and women in uniform; those who serve with honor, integrity, and a deep sense of duty. Before you inflame the sitution, do take a moment to think about those that serve & the families behind every uniform.
I’ll have more on this soon, but time is limited. Do check the references and who was handed the microphone. The reporting from Fox News is even more egregious. The reporting of glyphosate needs to be addressed.
Symbols, Labels, Law, and Regulation
The latest Pew Research shows Americans are deeply concerned about harmful chemicals. Most agree the government should do more and that industry can’t be trusted. I believe science must do better—but it’s been wandering off course.
substack.com/@allthingsto...
Lot’s on my mind, but like seeing Shadow, Jackie, and Punch coverage.
Glyphosate: Hitting New Lows in Journalism
It is hard to know what is deteriorating faster, journalistic rigor or public understanding of science.
Not surprised glyphosate came up in this morning’s confirmation hearing for Casey Means. The real question: will the coverage dig into the actual science and regulatory record or just recycle the usual talking points? substack.com/@allthingsto...
🤍
HHS could completely eliminate the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) - MAHA - the next step, don't trust the experts, trust me.
www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/...
Monsanto v Durnell, RoundUp, Glyphosate
Uniformity” appears 10x, the label is the law, no state-by-state crazy quilt. A case tailor-made for Bayer, with IARC referenced 50x, Also notable: some significant omissions/code. And where is the Commerce Clause?
www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-f...
A now ~10-year-old video might also best reflect past and current regulatory consensus. For the facebook, twitter, & bluesky scientists out there.
Left to Right (position at time)
• Dr. Jose V. Tarazona (EFSA)
• Dr. Bernhard Url (EFSA)
• Dr. Kathryn Guyton (IARC)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivQ0...
For more data, see Open EFSA
Peer Review Reports (61.5 MB) here in six (6) parts:
• Part 1 = 1131 pages
• Part 2 = 2930 pages
• Part 3 = 672 pages
• Part 4 = 1093 pages
• Part 5 = 372 pages
• Part 6 = 104 pages
open.efsa.europa.eu/study-invent...
