What A.I. thought asking about bias and any misrepresentation of fact.
The Substack post, while informative, leans toward a pro-Monsanto and regulatory authority perspective by emphasizing EPA decisions and portraying state court rulings and plaintiffs’ claims as fragmented or “crazy.” It downplays the scientific and public health concerns motivating additional warnings and frames economic risks mostly from a corporate viewpoint. The language sometimes minimizes the legitimacy of state tort claims and uses informal or subjective terms that could bias readers against those advocating for stronger consumer protections. A more balanced approach would give equal weight to both federal and state perspectives, clarify the scientific controversies, and use neutral language to better reflect the complexity of the legal and health issues involved.
My Response (refined and authentic)
Yes, I called the situation "crazy"—because from a regulatory and legal coherence standpoint, it is. That word reflects my reaction to years of watching inconsistent state-level rulings collide with a decades-long federal scientific review process. I understand how any defense of regulatory science, especially regarding glyphosate, can read as “pro-Monsanto,” but that’s not my intent. My perspective is rooted in the need for evidence-based policy and regulatory clarity.
I did make a point to acknowledge the legitimacy of state tort law, and I’m open to refining that further if it came across as dismissive. I’ll always argue that trust in science is built on transparency, reproducibility, and openness—and that principle applies to both the EPA and to those raising concerns. What I’m not doing is pretending that every court ruling automatically reflects scientific consensus or that every label warning is inherently protective.
No single post can unpack all the glyphosate science, nor should it try. But I’ve followed it closely for a decade, and this post reflects my read of a moment where law and science are in tension—and why that matters.
I’ll remove ‘crazy’ - in the post and consider other perspectives.
Gemini prompt ‘how could the following substack post be biased and constitute misinformation’
Potential Bias
Framing of the "Problem"
Emphasis on Economic Impact
Subtle Pro-Industry Language
"Immunity" Language
"Sowing Distrust" Language
Source Omission
Potential Misinformation
Oversimplification of EPA's Stance
Nuance of Preemption
"Rule of Four" Interpretation
Lack of Counter-Arguments/Details from Plaintiffs
"Trust in Science" as a Blanket Statement
While the Substack post provides valuable information about the Durnell case and the legal landscape, its language, emphasis, and occasional omissions could subtly steer the reader towards a particular viewpoint, specifically one that aligns with the industry's desire for federal preemption. To make it less biased and mitigate the risk of misinformation, it would need to present a more equally weighted discussion of the arguments, including more specific details and scientific counterpoints from the plaintiffs' perspective
Prompt ‘Was this post informative?’
The Substack post discusses Monsanto Company v. John L. Durnell, a Supreme Court case regarding whether federal law (FIFRA) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims for pesticides like glyphosate when the EPA has not required such warnings. The article highlights a significant split among federal and state courts on this issue, leading to fragmented legal outcomes where success in product liability claims can depend on jurisdiction. While acknowledging the importance of state-level protections for consumer safety and evolving science, the post emphasizes Monsanto's view that the situation is "intolerable" due to conflicting requirements and the potential for glyphosate to be driven off the market. It suggests the Court's decision will have broad implications beyond pesticides, affecting other federally regulated products and the balance between federal regulatory authority and state tort law, advocating for uniformity in science and regulation while subtly favoring the argument for federal preemption.
—-
It is hard not to oversimplify in the space provided, but with more than 10 billion dollars changing hands despite regulatory consensus on the subject, I’ll continue to strive to do better in explaining the good, bad, and ugly here - the glyphosate saga doesn’t end anytime soon.
Comment June 2025 via pubpeer on the Global Glyphosate Study - curious 🤔
#1 Mapinguari longipetiolatus —“Can the authors explain this difference? [Moderator: please include in the comment both tables.]”
I might need a closer look, and note my previoius note on statistics and historical control data. https://substack.com/@allthingstox/note/c-128117847?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=1tfavj - Did see the Webnar scheduled by Micheal Antoniou on 9Jul25 & linked below. This reminds of the ‘magic tumor’ testimony during the bellwether trials. It’s never boring.
<edited multiple times for typos at 4:30pm 26Jun25>
ZOOM: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_kvIQ8usaTyKULxSIaXAjkw#/registration
PUBPEER: https://pubpeer.com/publications/0469644773250A2A44DADCB3C7C9B6#1
GRAPHIC:
What A.I. thought asking about bias and any misrepresentation of fact.
The Substack post, while informative, leans toward a pro-Monsanto and regulatory authority perspective by emphasizing EPA decisions and portraying state court rulings and plaintiffs’ claims as fragmented or “crazy.” It downplays the scientific and public health concerns motivating additional warnings and frames economic risks mostly from a corporate viewpoint. The language sometimes minimizes the legitimacy of state tort claims and uses informal or subjective terms that could bias readers against those advocating for stronger consumer protections. A more balanced approach would give equal weight to both federal and state perspectives, clarify the scientific controversies, and use neutral language to better reflect the complexity of the legal and health issues involved.
My Response (refined and authentic)
Yes, I called the situation "crazy"—because from a regulatory and legal coherence standpoint, it is. That word reflects my reaction to years of watching inconsistent state-level rulings collide with a decades-long federal scientific review process. I understand how any defense of regulatory science, especially regarding glyphosate, can read as “pro-Monsanto,” but that’s not my intent. My perspective is rooted in the need for evidence-based policy and regulatory clarity.
I did make a point to acknowledge the legitimacy of state tort law, and I’m open to refining that further if it came across as dismissive. I’ll always argue that trust in science is built on transparency, reproducibility, and openness—and that principle applies to both the EPA and to those raising concerns. What I’m not doing is pretending that every court ruling automatically reflects scientific consensus or that every label warning is inherently protective.
No single post can unpack all the glyphosate science, nor should it try. But I’ve followed it closely for a decade, and this post reflects my read of a moment where law and science are in tension—and why that matters.
I’ll remove ‘crazy’ - in the post and consider other perspectives.
Gemini prompt ‘how could the following substack post be biased and constitute misinformation’
Potential Bias
Framing of the "Problem"
Emphasis on Economic Impact
Subtle Pro-Industry Language
"Immunity" Language
"Sowing Distrust" Language
Source Omission
Potential Misinformation
Oversimplification of EPA's Stance
Nuance of Preemption
"Rule of Four" Interpretation
Lack of Counter-Arguments/Details from Plaintiffs
"Trust in Science" as a Blanket Statement
While the Substack post provides valuable information about the Durnell case and the legal landscape, its language, emphasis, and occasional omissions could subtly steer the reader towards a particular viewpoint, specifically one that aligns with the industry's desire for federal preemption. To make it less biased and mitigate the risk of misinformation, it would need to present a more equally weighted discussion of the arguments, including more specific details and scientific counterpoints from the plaintiffs' perspective
Prompt ‘Was this post informative?’
The Substack post discusses Monsanto Company v. John L. Durnell, a Supreme Court case regarding whether federal law (FIFRA) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims for pesticides like glyphosate when the EPA has not required such warnings. The article highlights a significant split among federal and state courts on this issue, leading to fragmented legal outcomes where success in product liability claims can depend on jurisdiction. While acknowledging the importance of state-level protections for consumer safety and evolving science, the post emphasizes Monsanto's view that the situation is "intolerable" due to conflicting requirements and the potential for glyphosate to be driven off the market. It suggests the Court's decision will have broad implications beyond pesticides, affecting other federally regulated products and the balance between federal regulatory authority and state tort law, advocating for uniformity in science and regulation while subtly favoring the argument for federal preemption.
—-
It is hard not to oversimplify in the space provided, but with more than 10 billion dollars changing hands despite regulatory consensus on the subject, I’ll continue to strive to do better in explaining the good, bad, and ugly here - the glyphosate saga doesn’t end anytime soon.