Roundup Cancer Lawsuit Update: Oregon Court Overturns Monsanto Win

An Oregon court recently overturned a trial win for Monsanto, now owned by Bayer AG, reigniting the debate over the safety of Roundup weed killer’s active ingredient, glyphosate. This ruling underscores the growing scrutiny over the product’s safety and the regulatory oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It also casts a spotlight on the efforts by Bayer AG to shield itself from a barrage of lawsuits alleging that Roundup causes cancer.

Background of the Roundup Lawsuits

The History of Roundup and Monsanto

Roundup, introduced to the market in 1973 by Monsanto, quickly became a staple herbicide in the United States due to its effective active ingredient, glyphosate. Originally patented by Monsanto, glyphosate’s exclusive rights expired in 2000, allowing other manufacturers to incorporate it into their products. This led to a significant increase in its use, raising public and scientific concerns about its safety. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” which intensified the scrutiny and legal challenges against its use.

When Bayer AG acquired Monsanto in 2018, the company inherited numerous lawsuits alleging that glyphosate exposure led to health issues like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Despite settling over 100,000 Roundup cancer lawsuits by paying more than $10 billion, Bayer continues to face thousands of pending claims.

Previous Roundup Lawsuits and Settlements

The legal history surrounding Roundup and glyphosate has been marked by numerous high-profile lawsuits and significant settlements. In 1996, Monsanto faced allegations of misleading advertising about the safety of its glyphosate products, resulting in settlements and fines. More recently, the 2018 lawsuit involving Dewayne Johnson, a groundskeeper diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, garnered global attention when a jury awarded him $289 million, an amount later reduced on appeal. 

In response to the growing legal pressure, Bayer has attempted to mitigate the situation by negotiating settlements and exploring alternatives to glyphosate to preempt future claims. Despite these efforts, new Roundup cancer lawsuits continue to emerge, highlighting the ongoing controversy and public concern over glyphosate’s safety and its impact on human health.

Details of the Oregon Court Ruling

Key Points of the Appellate Court’s Decision

The Oregon appellate court identified a critical error in the initial trial proceedings involving Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer. The court highlighted that the exclusion of key testimony from Charles Benbrook, a former research professor and expert in agricultural policies, significantly impacted the jury’s decision-making process. 

Benbrook, who has authored critical evaluations of the EPA’s handling of glyphosate herbicides, was barred from testifying about the regulatory shortcomings and the reliance on industry-funded studies, which often dismissed cancer concerns. This exclusion pointed to a judicial misstep that potentially swayed the jury towards a verdict favorable to Monsanto without fully considering the regulatory and scientific disputes surrounding glyphosate.

Moreover, the court rejected Monsanto’s argument that the claims should have been barred altogether because the products carried the EPA’s approval. This rejection underscores the court’s stance that regulatory approval does not negate the potential for legal accountability, especially when public health is at stake.

Potential Impact of the Appellate Court’s Ruling

Implications for Future Roundup Claims

The Oregon appellate court’s decision has set a significant precedent that could influence future litigation involving Monsanto and potentially other companies using similar regulatory defenses. By emphasizing that the exclusion of expert testimony from Dr. Benbrook was a judicial error that impacted the trial’s outcome, the court has underscored the importance of a comprehensive evaluation of evidence in product liability lawsuits. This ruling highlights the potential implications of excluding critical expert analyses for public health and safety.

Furthermore, the court’s rejection of Monsanto’s argument that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempted state law claims marks a pivotal moment. This decision clarifies that federal approval does not shield companies from liability under state law, particularly when it comes to safety claims that could affect public health. This could encourage more rigorous scrutiny of regulatory approvals and foster greater accountability in the industry.