Quote Originally Posted by BalticSailor View Post
I doubt the impact will be significant. People screaming "Roundup causes cancer" have been around for almost as long as Roundup itself has. They would probably take this verdict as some sort of proof of Roundup's carcinogenicity, despite the fact that biological properties of any chemical can only be researched and established, not decided upon by a court. However, these very people don't use Roundup anyway, so nothing changes there. The amount of people who are on the fence about using Roundup is not that large, I imagine, and many of them probably will realize that the verdict doesn't qualify as evidence for any harmful effects.
This case has relevance to thousands of cases against Monsanto in the US alone. What will be especially interesting is if a jury ever finds an employer liable for an employee's illness due to using Roundup without providing "adequate" information (by this legal standard) about health risks. Given how ubiquitous Roundup is in many supply chains, even a small perceived change in risk of liability might have widespread effects.