Toxicological Science: Hitting New Lows in Journalism

Reading the news these past few days, I’m struck by how far journalistic rigor has fallen. It’s disheartening. I’ve been drafting an article prompted by coverage from outlets I once trusted (e.g., AP News, Politico, The Hill, & CNN), especially their reporting on glyphosate. I’ll hold back for now, but I’m frankly exhausted watching journalists hand the microphone to members of the MAHA movement as if they were authorities.

Expertise, it seems, is now optional. Competence and ethics in journalism have eroded to the point where complex toxicological and regulatory issues are reduced to ideological talking points - and that is debatable (kind). The absence of qualified experts is, to some extent, understandable as few toxicologists (not Medical Toxicologists) are speaking publicly. They just arent here and the resultant vacuum has been filled by the loudest and least informed voices.

On X, the discourse is even worse: I’m seen some from Bayer absurdly discussing DDT, while countless other users insist glyphosate has been a “known carcinogen” for decades. The combination of cherry‑picking, lies of omission, and ad hominem attacks reflects a broader intellectual rot. Literacy is a real problem, and scientific literacy is worse.

I’m listening to the Casey Means hearing this morning (😔) and still working through the briefs filed to SCOTUS ahead of Monsanto v. Durnell. There are important issues at stake. Even if Bayer prevails on preemption, litigation will not end. Plaintiffs’ lawyers will find new angles. After all, why would they stop? Barnes v. Monsanto showed that a jury can award over $2 billion in a three‑week trial without expert testimony and just replaying old video clips of former Monsanto employees.

Reflecting on the past decade of following glyphosate litigation, it is striking how the most consequential and technically difficult issues have received the least attention. The critical distinctions between the IARC Monograph Programme and regulatory bodies, how those determinations are tethered to the State of California’s framework, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on EPA’s human health assessment and the muted response from EPA’s Office of General Counsel, the limited coverage of the Australian litigation, the substance of the Shubb compelled-speech decision, and the Third Circuit’s deep dive into FIFRA all deserved far more serious analysis. I could go on.

Funny, how some of my notes, might actually be articles to some. Still, I am trying to remain optimistic. Beyond the noise, there are meaningful scientific and regulatory innovations on the horizon. That is where careful attention belongs.