Request Legal Help Now - Free

Advertisement
LAWSUITS NEWS & LEGAL INFORMATION

Bayer Done with Roundup Settlements

. By

Bayer has asked the Supreme Court who has asked the Solicitor General to weigh in regarding its appeal to no longer settle additional Monsanto Roundup Claims

Santa Clara, CAIt all boils down to federal regulators. Bayer has asked for a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has asked the Solicitor General to weigh in. A favorable decision for Bayer means it could be exempt from Monsanto’s Roundup lawsuits based on federal regulators' approval of its glyphosate-based herbicide.

Encouraged by the Supreme Court ‘s interest, Bayer said “it won’t take part in any further settlement discussions with lawyers who represent a substantial number of plaintiffs,” and “believes there are strong legal arguments to support Supreme Court review and reversal.” If the Supreme Court grants Bayer a writ of certiorari (the primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant certiorari-- a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review) it could curtail the ability of future plaintiffs to pursue their claims.

Monsanto v. Hardeman


Bayer has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in one of the early bellwether trials: $25 million was awarded to Edwin Hardeman who claimed decades of exposure to Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The California man used Roundup from the 1980s to 2012; he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma in 2015. Hardeman sued Monsanto for failure to warn of Roundup’s carcinogenic risk. Jurors agreed that Roundup caused his cancer and awarded him more than $80 million, later reduced by the trial judge to $25 million. (Bayer also argued that the trial judge improperly allowed expert testimony that Roundup causes cancer. The company said the testimony was speculative.) A federal appeals court upheld the award.

According to Public Justice, Hardeman’s lawyers argued that, Under the Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling, “where, as here, a plaintiff proves that a herbicide is dangerous to human health, the manufacturer can be found in violation of both state and federal law.”
Bayer argued that, under the appeals court ruling, “a company can be severely punished for marketing a product without a cancer warning when the near-universal scientific and regulatory consensus is that the product does not cause cancer, and the responsible federal agency has forbidden such a warning.” Bayer says the EPA sent a letter in 2019 that told manufacturers of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, that no request to add a cancer warning would be approved because it would be false and misleading.

Hardeman’s lawyers argued that the EPA’s letter doesn’t address the “unique risks” posed when glyphosate is combined with other ingredients. They said the EPA has approved warnings on glyphosate-based formulations like Roundup and has never reached any conclusion as to whether those formulations cause cancer.

Bayer argues that federal approval of Roundup’s label meant Hardeman’s suit, and tens of thousands of similar claims, should be tossed. Bloomberg reported (Dec 2021, subscription required) that a Supreme Court ruling in its favor would “effectively and largely end” U.S. Roundup litigation, while at the same time setting aside $4.5 billion in case the court rejected the appeal—as told by Bayer last July. The case is Monsanto v. Hardeman.

FIFRA Pesticide Law


Bayer is counting on Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to defend the company from liability. FIFRA’s job is to provide “for federal regulation of pesticide distribution, sale, and use. All pesticides distributed or sold in the United States must be registered (licensed) by EPA. Before EPA may register a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant must show, among other things, that using the pesticide according to specifications "will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.'' It also says that states may not impose packaging or labeling requirements that are “in addition to or different from” those under the federal law.

A few Bayer factoids:

To date, Bayer has pledged more than $16 billion to fight and settle Roundup litigation.
Bayer announced in July it will pull the current version of the weedkiller off the U.S. consumer market in 2023.
Bayer and its Monsanto subsidiary faced more than 120,000 Roundup lawsuits brought by individuals throughout the U.S. with similar claims that they were not adequately warned about the cancer risk posed by glyphosate-based herbicides.
Bayer still maintains Roundup doesn’t cause cancer.

READ ABOUT ROUNDUP CANCER LAWSUITS

Roundup Cancer Legal Help

If you or a loved one have suffered losses in this case, please click the link below and your complaint will be sent to a defective products lawyer who may evaluate your Roundup Cancer claim at no cost or obligation.

READER COMMENTS

Posted by

on
We need to sue the EPA. there's plenty of evidence that the EPA did its evaluation specifically to reach a foregone conclusion. This is incredibly important, because at any given moment well more than half of the population is carrying glyphosate and its metabolites in their bodies, due largely to glyphosate's use at harvest of many cereal grains, pulses, spices, etc. I suspect it's ubiquitous presence in our water supply is also to blame for its presence in foods like baby food carrots. We continue to discover links between this kind of exposure and various diseases. Links to Particular liver disease has been well-documented, but there are many many health problems associated with measurable glyphosate in the urine. This is a crisis we need to address. The EPA has done worse than fail to protect us, it has purposefully kowtowed to the pesticide industry, which it's supposed to regulate. The letter it wrote to manufacturers, forbidding a label CA wanted to require (in keeping with its policy to label in accordance with the findings of the IARC) was a blatant and disturbing act of betrayal to the EPA's mission, all for the sake of industry profits. It's so important to reclaim our EPA, especially in light of the fact that other regulators in many other countries follow the EPA's lead.

ADD YOUR COMMENT ON THIS STORY

Fields marked * are mandatory. Please read our comment guidelines before posting.

*Name:

Note: Your name will be published with your comment.

*Email Address:

Your email will only be used if a response is needed.
*Your Comment:

Are you the defendant or a subject matter expert on this topic with an opposing viewpoint? We'd love to hear your comments here as well, or if you'd like to contact us for an interview please submit your details here.


Click to learn more about LawyersandSettlements.com

Request Legal Help Now! - Free