Durnell v Monsanto | Glyphosate | RoundUp (redux)

This case is again scheduled for conference this morning, results possible next Monday. I’d add to previous thoughts that Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh may be receptive to hearing to preemption and uniform national standards, they will need one more for the rule of 4. Gorsuch with textualist leanings might be the fourth. Barrett could join as the fifth being attracted to refining Bates v. Dow's "parallel requirements" test. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson solid no, prioritizing state police powers and plaintiff access to toxic torts. Even if certiorari is granted, this is no slam dunk for Bayer and the ending vote will be close.

—-

TL;DR (my glyphosate writing scribbles for today)

Glyphosate's saga is an OMG-level trainwreck spanning toxicology, regulation, law, and litigation with billions in the balance, biases exposed, connections everywhere. Are you not entertained?

——

From the monograph program’s shortcomings (more needed); EPA’s interim decision withdrawal (more needed); the often-ignored regulatory consensus; EFSA/ECHA and Bernard Url’s “Facebook science” dig; OEHHA’s NSRL (response needed with new data); cancer risk claims, duties to warn, Rule 702 and expert implosions, ‘Zhang & junk science’; Schubb’s commercial free-speech smackdown; McNickle’s trial bump in AU; and misbranding provisions in flux—through to fresher bombshells like the Global Glyphosate Study (detailed response needed) and Williams’ retraction (failure to understand COPE ICMJE, merchants of doubt, playing the player not the ball - poorly discussed) —> these threads will continue to fuel the ‘facebook scientists’ and 2026 UK/US re-registration battles. Now, more than a decade on, the glyphosate saga remains at the intersection of activism, science, and courtroom dynamics where clarity rarely survives and evidence routinely yields to bias and incentives. - Maybe another book is needed?

—-

<I’m going to paste from text from previous thread here for some additional thoughts and future writing - from a few days ago - needs expansion>

How are logP versus logD different and govern biodistribution, particularly limiting penetration beyond hydrophilic compartments? What human oral bioavailability estimates emerge from Zoller (2020) and Faniband (2021)? To what extent do Brewster (1990) and pre-registration studies on carcass and bone persistence indicate bioaccumulation potential, including the role of chelation in these observations? Integrating the above with dietary exposure estimates from Louie (2021) and Vicini (2021), what maximum human blood levels of glyphosate can be estimated, and how do these compare with in vitro assessments of glyphosate toxicity in general?

Explain why glyphosate publications and regulatory documents depict full shikimate pathway diagrams without feedback inhibition, despite most gut microbes being auxotrophs reliant on dietary aromatic amino acids? Is the pathway largely inactive, backed by metatranscriptomic evidence of transcriptional silence under nutrient-rich conditions, thus overstating glyphosate risks? Do most gut bacteria lack a complete shikimate pathway, with taxonomic EPSPS classifications ignoring other key enzymes? How might aromatic amino acid transport mechanisms and bioavailability answers above further complicate dysbiosis theories?

so much more…

Just thinking as editing, entirely possible the Bayer’s legal representation could yet again add to the billions lost. As I outlined previously, direct questioning and a step away from the text of FIFRA 7 U.S.C. §136v(b) might be needed. Federalism questions will be difficult to address.

<updated 16Jan25 at 6:38am Pacific (again at 6:49am), fixed typos, added text here at bottom>