Bayer Just Lost Another Lawsuit Claiming Roundup Caused Cancer

A jury awarded a California couple a stunning $2 billion.

Haven Daley/Associated Press

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Monday, a jury in a California state court handed German chemical company Bayer its third straight loss in a series of lawsuits claiming the company’s glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide causes cancer. Glyphosate-based herbicides are the most commonly used weedkillers in the United States and worldwide, and they are widely used on farms, lawns, and in all manner of landscaping. The case involved a married couple named Alva and Alberta Pilliod, who have both been diagnosed with a rare cancer called non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. After they argued that their regular use of Roundup led to their cancers, a jury handed them a total of $55 million in compensatory damages—and a stunning $2 billion in punitive damages. 

The decision, which Bayer quickly vowed to appeal, comes on the heels of a March ruling in a California federal court, when a jury awarded Edwin Hardeman $80 million in damages based on his claim that his regular spraying of Roundup on his land led to his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma diagnosis. In another decision in August 2018, a California state court jury awarded school groundskeeper $289 million in damages after ruling that Roundup exposure had caused his cancer. The award was later reduced to $78 million—roughly equal to the damages decided in the Hardeman case.

The $2 billion blow delivered by the jury Monday will likely be reduced as well. Reuters reports that US Supreme Court rulings “limit the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages to 9:1.” Given the $55 million in compensatory damages, punitive damages would be capped at $495 million. 

That’s cold comfort to Bayer’s shareholders, who have seen the company’s share price plunge since the company finalized its deal to buy US seed and pesticide giant Monsanto in June 2018. Thousands of lawsuits alleging Roundup’s link to cancer still loom in US courts. Monsanto debuted glyphosate in 1974 under the brand name Roundup, and later developed blockbuster corn, soybean, and cotton crops genetically engineered to resist it.

In Monday’s case, Judge Winifred Smith instructed jurors to consider whether “Roundup’s failure to perform safely was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Pilliod’s and/or Mrs. Pilliod’s harm,” and whether “lack of sufficient warnings was a substantial factor.” The judge noted that punitive damages are intended to  punish a wrongdoer for the conduct that harmed the plaintiff and to discourage similar conduct in the future,” and should only be awarded if “only if Mr. Pilliod and/or Mrs. Pilliod prove that Monsanto engaged in…malice, oppression, or fraud.” 

At a meeting in Bonn, Germany, in late April, 55 percent of Bayer shareholders voted for a no-confidence resolution decrying the company’s management over the past year. Their main complaint: the decision to buy Monsanto and its Roundup liabilities. With three decision down and thousands of more cases teed up, pressure will be on Bayer’s management team to find an out-of-court settlement for these cancer claims. 

But “reaching a settlement in the case is complicated by the fact that the product continues to be sold to consumers and farmers and doesn’t carry a cancer-warning label, which means the potential pool of plaintiffs could expand indefinitely,” the Wall Street Journal reports. “The company could reach a deal with the current batch of plaintiffs and set aside money to pay out future claims, or continue fighting case by case to gather more data points.” 

The question of whether glyphosate-based herbicides cause cancer remains fiercely disputed. As I reported back in March, a recent research review by several scientists who once served on a US Environmental Protection Agency panel on glyphosate found a “compelling link” to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Last month, the EPA reiterated its long-held view that “there are no risks to public health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label and that glyphosate is not a carcinogen.” 

Health Canada and the European Food Safety Authority have also concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer, and they continue to allow its widespread use. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer decided in 2015 that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate