RE: Science shouldn’t be decided in the courtroom
There argument seems to have been that there wasn't adequate warning on the product. With the jury concluding that:
Monsanto had acted with "malice" and that its weed killers contributed "substantially" to Mr Johnson's terminal illness.
Mr Johnson's lawyer, Brent Wisner, said the jury's verdict showed that the evidence against the product was "overwhelming". source
All I can see is that the lawyers case rested heavily on the classification from WHO. I struggle to think what other evidence could be presented to make this statement accurate. However, like yourself, I have not reviewed the background literature on the subject. Probably best if I do at some point, lots of anti-vaccine people are talking about this at the moment so it's probably going to stick around for an long time.
The Center for Food Safety Report that I mentioned in my other comment cites a lot of relevant literature and mentions some differences of opinion and evidence. After reading the entire thing, I think we should demand a ban of glyphosate. This alone should give us all pause: "EPA’s latest high-end
estimate of infant exposure to glyphosate exceeds the level it regarded as safe in the 1980s;17 and is five times higher than the maximum level suggested by independent scientists." BTW, the EPA's "safe" level of exposure is 6 times higher than Europe's.