The History of Roundup
Other Products Contain Glyphosate
Roundup’s Link to Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
What is Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma?
What Are the Symptoms of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma?
Who Has Been Affected by Roundup?
Glyphosate Will Be Removed from Residential Roundup
Alternatives to Roundup & Glyphosate Products
Roundup Cancer Lawsuits
Roundup Class Action Lawsuit
Roundup Settlement
Trusted Sources on Roundup
Diagnosed with cancer or Non-Hodgkin lymphoma after being exposed to Roundup weedkiller?
As the controversy around Roundup weed killer gains more and more attention from the courts, debate continues regarding the product’s link to cancer and overall safety. This situation will only grow more complex, so it’s important to understand the fundamentals behind what’s going on and what we can expect in the future for Roundup lawsuits. If you or a loved one was diagnosed with cancer after being exposed to Roundup weedkiller, you may be entitled to significant compensation. Contact us today for your free case review.
Since first being introduced in the 1970s, Roundup became one of the most widely used weed killers in the country. Its main ingredient, glyphosate, was extremely effective, making it a popular choice for both agricultural and residential use. Roundup was so good at its job that its maker, Monsanto, began genetically engineering seeds, like corn, soybeans and sugar beets, to tolerate it.
But in 2015, health officials raised an alarm about the dangers of glyphosate in Roundup and other weed killers. Years of peer-reviewed studies suggested a link to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The revelation triggered more research and heated debate within the scientific community, with some studies insisting we should be alarmed about Roundup’s entire formula–not just glyphosate.
Meanwhile, those exposed to Roundup were left wondering if their health was at risk. Weed killers, including those containing glyphosate, were sprayed in our yards, playgrounds and public areas, even on the crops we use to feed our families.
Shortly after news broke about Roundup’s link to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other cancers, the legal battle began. Those affected began to come forward to claim Roundup was responsible for their diagnosis. In 2018, three years after Bayer bought Monsanto, Bayer set aside more than $16 billion to cover liability costs associated with the litigation.
Bayer intends to take this fight all the way to the Supreme Court, which means ongoing litigation will only continue to evolve.
After coming out on top in three straight court trials, Bayer was dealt a significant blow on June 21, 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider the company’s appeal of a a 2021 federal appeals court decision. In that case, the company argued that lawsuits relying on state law to assess the safety of glyphosate were preempted by federal law, largely because the EPA hasn’t required warning labels for glyphosate, and since the agency has determined that glyphosate isn’t likely to cause cancer in humans. The argument here is that if the EPA says Roundup/glyphosate is safe, then state courts aren’t permitted to find otherwise. If the Supreme Court had agreed to consider the question, the answer might have been huge, especially if it adopted the preemption argument. But now, with the high court opting out of any kind of ruling, Bayer’s liability remains very much an open question. Back in 2021, an official statement from Bayer detailed the company’s legal strategy for the near future. It hinged largely on the petition for review that the top court just turned away. The company basically said that if the Supreme Court won’t hear the appeal (now a reality), the company intended to “activate its own claims administration plan” for consumers who allege that their health problems can be attributed to Roundup use. More details here as they come available.
Bayer has announced a proposed $2 billion agreement to resolve future Roundup lawsuits, in the German giant’s latest attempt to ride out a wave of claims linking its popular weed killer to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. According to the Wall Street Journal, the proposed deal would create a compensation program that would pay future Roundup claimants approximately $5,000 to $200,000 each, “with the offers dependent on age, health, proof of Roundup use and other factors.” Participation in the compensation program would be limited to claimants who aren’t represented by a lawyer, but any future Roundup claimant would also be free to opt out of the settlement and pursue a lawsuit against Bayer on their own.
The proposed agreement is part of a big consolidation of Roundup lawsuits brought together in a process known as multidistrict litigation (MDL). In 2020, Bayer and a number of plaintiffs’ lawyers in the MDL (called “In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation”) reached a massive $10.9B settlement agreement meant to apply to current and future Roundup claims, only to have Judge Vince Chhabria (who is overseeing the MDL in federal district court in California) reject the deal (more on this below). Part of Judge Chhabria’s objections related to the rights of future claimants, so it looks like the parties have tried to account for those objections with this revamped agreement and its opt-out provisions. We’ll have to wait and see whether Judge Chhabria signs off on this latest version of the deal.
Bayer/Monsanto and a number of plaintiffs’ attorneys have agreed to settle 15,000 lawsuits over health problems linked to use of Roundup.
Terms of the settlements (including dollar figures) weren’t announced, but according to multiple news outlets, all 15,000 cases were being handled by the only three lawyers to have taken Roundup lawsuits to trial against Bayer/Monsanto. So it looks like the lawyers with the most courtroom experience going up against Bayer/Monsanto are now out of the litigation picture, which is likely no coincidence.
These agreements are part of the big $10.9 billion settlement in the Roundup multi-district litigation (MDL) discussed below, and it’s not yet clear how the judge handling the MDL will fold these latest deals into the bigger settlement picture.
A California appellate court denied Bayer’s request to overturn the trial court’s decision in the first Roundup injury lawsuit to reach a verdict: In 2018, a California jury found in favor of Dewayne Johnson, a 46-year-old groundskeeper who worked at a number of California schools.
In that 2018 trial, the plaintiff’s attorneys argued that the groundskeeper developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using Roundup on the job, and that there is a scientific connection between the product and the illness. The jury agreed, finding that Bayer/Monsanto failed to issue adequate warnings to consumers when it comes to Roundup and cancer risks. Bayer/Monsanto was ordered to pay $39 million in compensatory damages, plus another $250 million in punitive damages.
The total award was later reduced to $78.5 million. Then in July 2020, though denying Bayer’s request to overturn the verdict, the California appellate court further reduced the groundskeeper’s award from $78.5 million to $20.5 million.
After a federal jury in California awarded a plaintiff around $75 million in punitive damages as part of a successful Roundup lawsuit, the judge cut that figure to around $20 million. Though evidence showed that the plaintiff had used Roundup for over 25 years (in his yard) before developing cancer, the judge found the punitive damages award “constitutionally impermissible” relative to the amount of compensatory damages awarded (around $5 million, an amount the judge left unchanged from the jury’s March 2019 decision).
A California jury ordered Bayer to pay $2 billion in punitive damages in a lawsuit filed by a couple who both developed cancer after using Roundup for over 30 years. The couple was also awarded another $55 million as compensation for their medical bills, pain and suffering, and other damages. A few months later, this massive award was reduced to $86.7 after the judge concluded that the $2B judgment was significantly out of step with legal precedent.
For decades, Roundup weed killers were used virtually everywhere. It was a trusted product because it was tremendously effective. So what went wrong?
Roundup’s Formula Causes Concern
Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, set off initial waves of concern. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research and Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Meaning, it could possibly cause cancer. More specifically, researchers were looking at an apparent increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a disease that causes your body to create too many abnormal white blood cells. It targets the lymphatic system, causing tumors to form throughout the body. As the IARC was releasing their findings, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was in the process of conducting a registration review. In 2016, the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee concluded glyphosate was not likely to cause cancer.
Glyphosate Sparks More Debate
With such a glaring discrepancy hanging in the air, the EPA decided to take their investigation further. A special panel of scientists came together to review the previous EPA report. Their findings were also divided. Some believed the report looked good, while others raised concern about perceived missteps in how the EPA evaluated certain data.
Additionally, the EPA’s Office of Research and Development noted that the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs failed to follow certain protocols as they evaluated glyphosate. In its view, the research did suggest glyphosate could cause cancer.
Despite the lack of consensus, the EPA upheld its original conclusion in 2019, even though yet another report, issued that same year, highlighted the links between glyphosate exposure and cancer. The U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry cited multiple studies pointing to a risk ratio “greater than one” for developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or multiple myeloma after glyphosate exposure.
Internal Monsanto Memos Spark Outrage
As Roundup lawsuits began piling up, many plaintiffs’ claims echoed the same thing: That, despite years of research indicating a link between their product and cancer, the company did nothing to warn consumers.
One of the most widely publicized cases, brought forth in California by a school groundskeeper named Dewayne Johnson, brought some truly disturbing facts to light. Johnson had been diagnosed with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2014. During his trial against Roundup manufacturers, his legal team referred to internal documents that not only show Monsanto was aware of Roundup’s link to cancer, but they took concerted efforts to mislead the public.
Records include discussions about ghostwriting scientific papers on glyphosate, with authors of the papers supporting the claim that weed killer products were safe to use. There were also plans to launch attacks on the World Health Organization’s credibility, calling into question its findings that classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.
Roundup Litigation Moves Beyond Glyphosate
With all the controversy and debate around glyphosate, it’s important to note that juries are deciding in favor of plaintiffs because litigation is probing even deeper into Roundup’s formula.
Some studies may conclude that glyphosate on its own is not linked to cancer, but these findings do not necessarily mean the product as a whole is safe to use.
Studies have uncovered possible links between Roundup and all sorts of diseases and disorders: Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, autism, reproductive medical conditions, fatty liver disease, kidney cancer, liver cancer, just to name a few. But the most common illness named in lawsuits, by a mile, is non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
What Is Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma?
According to the Mayo Clinic, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a disease that occurs when the body creates too many white blood cells. It impacts the lymphatic system, where the body fights germs and manages the immune system. Tumors may begin to form as white blood cells grow abnormally.
Typically, the disease is found in the lymph nodes. However, it can spread to other parts of the lymphatic system, including the tonsils, spleen, bone marrow, and lymphatic vessels. Sometimes it can spread to organs that aren’t part of the lymphatic system.
When a person is diagnosed, their recovery and survival rate hinges on many things. Most people don’t carry any obvious risk factors, and even those that do never get sick. Risk factors can include immune-suppressing medications, certain viruses and bacteria, and old age.
Importantly, the Mayo Clinic does cite certain chemicals as a potential risk factor, saying, “those used to kill insects and weeds may increase your risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. More research is needed to understand the possible link between pesticides and the development of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.”
Here are some important points taken from studies linking Roundup to non-Hodgkin’s:
Symptoms of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
The Mayo Clinic lists the following as possible symptoms of NHL:
Diagnosed with cancer or Non-Hodgkin lymphoma after being exposed to Roundup weedkiller?
The majority of plaintiffs Roundup lawsuits have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other similar types of cancer. Many were exposed on the job, such as was the case in Dewayne Johnson’s situation, and others used Roundup at home for years. In general, people who meet these criteria may be eligible to file a Roundup lawsuit:
In 2018, three years after Bayer bought Monsanto, Bayer set aside more than $16 billion to cover liability costs associated with Roundup litigation. Cancer victims brought three cases forward, and Monsanto lost all three trials. In June 2020, Bayer announced it would pay more than $10 billion to settle 100,000 active claims against Roundup.
Many firms have reached settlement agreements with Bayer. However, many plaintiffs were not pleased with this news. Bayer’s settlement proposal came one year after U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ordered Bayer into mediation with plaintiff attorneys. With the settlement announcement, plaintiffs complained the individual amounts they were offered were not enough to be considered fair compensation. Under this plan, instead of seeking damages, plaintiffs would be eligible for free medical exams and compensation up to $200,000.
Approximately 30,000 unsettled cases remain. In July 2021, Bayer said it would set aside another $4.5 billion to cover Roundup cancer claims.
Glyphosate to be Removed from Residential Roundup
In July 2021, Bayer announced it would remove glyphosate from its residential lawn and garden products, effective January 2023. Moving forward, the company will manufacture household weed killers without this chemical. The vast majority of Roundup lawsuits stem from residential use, so this move is unsurprising. However, professional and agricultural users, such as farmers and retailers will still be able to purchase glyphosate products after January 2023.
On to the Supreme Court
Bayer is seeking a review from the U.S. Supreme Court on its loss in the Hardeman v. Monsanto trial on the grounds that the deciding state law in that case is invalid because it conflicts with a federal law.
In 2016, Edwin Hardeman sued Monsanto, alleging that Roundup caused his cancer and there was no warning that exposure to the product could be dangerous. In 2019, a jury ruled unanimously in Hardeman’s favor, awarding him $80 million. The court later reduced that award to $20 million on constitutional grounds.
The initial appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals raised an important question: whether the EPA’s approval of glyphosate (not Roundup specifically) and the agency’s industry-influenced position that glyphosate does not cause cancer preempts a personal-injury victim’s right to recover damages.
Ultimately, the 9th Circuit held that the EPA’s approval of a pesticide label does not excuse a manufacturer from liability in the tort system, affirming the jury’s finding in the Hardeman case.
If Bayer is successful and the original decision is overturned by the Supreme Court, it would prevent continued litigation centering on claims that Monsanto failed to warn consumers of the dangers associated with using Roundup. These are called “failure to warn” claims.
In the event of a “negative Supreme Court outcome,” Bayer said it would set up a claims’ administration program that will offer “pre-determined compensation values” to “eligible individuals” who used Roundup and developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma over the next 15 years.
Every Roundup case is extremely unique, so there is no fixed settlement amount tied to the litigation. Many considerations go into a verdict, like age, health conditions, and the ability of the plaintiff and their representation to prove how often they used or were exposed to Roundup. All of this and more affects the final outcome.
Additionally, some Roundup cases are being consolidated into a federal multidistrict litigation that will proceed to trial in the future. This will also impact settlement amounts, as cases are not settled individually.
Factors That Affect the Roundup Lawsuit Settlement Amounts
While each Roundup case is very different from the next, there are some common factors we can point to that help us better understand potential settlement amounts.
Previous, ongoing, and future medical costs
Plaintiffs exposed to Roundup weed killer products may be eligible to recover the costs of past, present, and even expected future medical bills related to their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma diagnosis. It’s also reasonable to expect the long-term physical and emotional suffering that happens as a result could lead to higher-than-usual medical bills. All this factors into a settlement decision.
Lost income
Suffering from cancer after exposure to Roundup weed killer can cause victims to be unable to work and provide for their families, often for years after their initial diagnosis. Although some plaintiffs can recover from their illness, it’s possible they aren’t able to work in the same capacity as before. In some cases, victims are left completely disabled. Settlements may account for this.
Pain and suffering damages
Prolonged illness and, of course, the death of a loved one can cause severe emotional and mental distress. This is more difficult to quantify in court, as there often are no bills or receipts to look to. But these factors are no less important and worthy of restitution.
Loss of joy of living
If an NHL diagnosis renders a victim unable to enjoy life like they once did, perhaps because they are now permanently disabled as a result, they can pursue damages to compensate for the ways the disease has affected their life.
Why Would You Choose a Roundup Settlement vs. Trial?
Pursuing a Roundup weed killer settlement versus taking the manufacturer to trial may not be the best decision for everyone. But in some cases, this course of action can be more beneficial than a long, drawn-out litigation.
Guaranteed payout
In a Roundup lawsuit settlement, the compensation is guaranteed once both the plaintiffs and the defendant agree on the terms. Taking on a multi-billion dollar company like Bayer/Monsanto is time-consuming and costly, so a settlement can be a favorable option.
Avoiding the additional financial burden
Not everyone who brings forward a Roundup glyphosate lawsuit can afford to pursue a verdict in court. Even defendants aren’t willing to spend more than they need to in legal costs.
Saves time
The legal system can sometimes move at a glacial pace. Unfortunately, many Roundup plaintiffs do not have time on their side. It could be months or years before a trial verdict is reached. A settlement is often quicker.
Convenience
Another advantage of a Roundup settlement is the opportunity for the plaintiffs and defendant to structure the settlement in a way that works for both of them. This may involve the defendant agreeing to pay a settlement in installments, rather than in a lump sum.
Preventing a negative verdict
There are two types of valuation used to determine the settlement amount in Roundup cases: trial value and settlement value. The trial value is the amount you expect the court to award, while the settlement value is the amount the plaintiffs hope to settle their Roundup cases for.
These values are rarely equal to each other. Because victims are settling a Roundup case to avoid the risk of losing at trial, the settlement value will always be much lower than the trial value. But even though the settlement value is less than the trial value, at least the compensation is guaranteed.
Currently, there are over 30,000 Roundup lawsuits pending a settlement agreement. This is after Bayer agreed to pay over $10 billion to settle roughly 100,000 claims. In 2021, Bayer announced it would set aside an additional $4.5 billion to cover Roundup cancer claims, and that it would stop selling glyphosate-based weed killer for residential use in the United States in 2023. However, it will still be available commercially.
Bayer’s next hurdle will come at the U.S. Supreme Court. The body has asked for the Biden administration’s opinion on whether it should hear a landmark product liability case against Bayer, in which a California man, Edwin Hardeman, alleges his use of Roundup from the 1980s all the way to 2012 resulted in his NHL diagnosis.
Hardeman was awarded a $25 million verdict, which was upheld by a U.S. Court of Appeals. Bayer then filed a petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the decision.
As all parties wait for the Biden administration to weigh in, Bayer released a statement saying it was encouraged by the court’s interest in hearing the case. The court’s conservative majority has a reputation for being pro-business.
After losing three appeals against verdicts ruling in favor of plaintiffs, combined with its nearly 30,000 remaining lawsuits, Bayer has a steep legal hill to climb. And importantly, there may remain untold numbers of consumers whose cancer diagnosis and suffering came as a result of Roundup exposure.
Despite Bayer/Monsanto’s efforts to stall and appeal cases, the fight for justice for Roundup victims continues. If you or someone you loved were exposed to Roundup and believe you have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or a similar illness as a result, it is imperative you speak with a qualified lawyer to see if you may be eligible for a settlement. A legal expert can help you build your case and even help you determine if settlement negotiations would be better for your specific situation.
Diagnosed with cancer or Non-Hodgkin lymphoma after being exposed to Roundup weedkiller?
Diagnosed with cancer or Non-Hodgkin lymphoma after being exposed to Roundup weedkiller?
Diagnosed with cancer or Non-Hodgkin lymphoma after being exposed to Roundup weedkiller?
Despite its health risks, glyphosate is an incredibly effective weed killer. Still, there are safer alternatives to consider, especially when it comes to residential lawns and gardens. For example, industrial vinegar has been known to kill weeds. Be sure to wear protective goggles and gloves if you go this route. Household vinegar on its own may not be strong enough to kill off unwanted weeds, but adding salt can make it more effective.
Organic weed killers are also good alternatives. Manufacturers claim their products are safe for humans and pets but always read the label carefully before using any chemical product.
Finally, corn gluten, a byproduct of corn starch processing, has been known to slow the development of new weeds. This dry powder is safe for people and the environment.
Many people have come forward with claims that exposure to Roundup led to their cancer diagnosis since the WHO’s revelations in 2015. Thousands of lawsuits, including class actions and individual claims, have been filed against Bayer.
One of the most significant outcomes was a $10 billion settlement in 2020, which Bayer paid to end tens of thousands of lawsuits. A portion of that amount was set aside to cover future lawsuits.
Decisions have not been limited to class action suits. In 2019, a California jury delivered a $2 billion verdict to a couple who claimed Roundup caused their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, though a court reduced the final settlement amount. In that same year, a California man was awarded $80 million in a trial verdict. A 2018 landmark trial awarded $289 million to a groundskeeper who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. That verdict was finalized at $78 million.
Despite numerous settlements, including the $10 billion decision, Roundup litigation is ongoing, and law firms continue to take on clients seeking justice. roundup settlement
If you believe you have a qualifying case, we are here to provide a free, no-obligation case review to determine if you may be eligible for a settlement. If you are, we’ll carefully match you with the best attorney for your case. There are no legal fees unless you win compensation. Contact us today to get started.
For more information on Roundup, glyphosate, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, visit these trusted sources:
Our national Roundup lawyers will investigate for free. If you used Roundup weed killer then suffered from a serious illness, you may be entitled to significant compensation.
A member of our team is standing by ready to help you pursue your legal claim or guide you with your Roundup claim.
We value your privacy. By clicking REVIEW MY CASE, you agree to our privacy policy and disclaimer. After submitting, you will be contacted by one or more of MedicalVictims.org’s trusted legal partners (including autodialed and prerecorded calls or text/SMS messages). Msg. and data rates apply. Your consent to text messaging is not required for a case review and you may opt out of text messages at any time by texting STOP. This is legal advertising.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. No attorney-client relationship is formed by your use of this website or by any communication you send or receive through this site. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. Prior results do not predict a similar outcome. The information on this website is proprietary and protected. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Talk to your doctor before you stop taking any medication. The information on this website is proprietary and protected. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Any unauthorized or illegal use, copying or dissemination will be prosecuted. Please read our disclaimer for more information about our website.
© 2023 MedicalVictims.org About Us / Privacy Policy / Advertising Disclosure / Do Not Sell My Info
Act now by requesting your free case review with one of our top lawyers today.
We value your privacy. By clicking GET MY FREE CASE REVIEW, you agree to our privacy policy and disclaimer. After submitting, you will be contacted by one or more of MedicalVictims.org’s trusted legal partners (including autodialed and prerecorded calls or text/SMS messages). Msg. and data rates apply. Your consent to text messaging is not required for a case review and you may opt out of text messages at any time by texting STOP. This is legal advertising.
Calling this number connects you with a MedicalVictims.com representative. We will direct you to one of our trusted legal partners for a free case review.
MedicalVictims.com’s trusted legal partners support the organization’s mission to keep people safe from dangerous drugs and medical devices. For more information, visit our FAQ page.
MedicalVictims.org doesn’t believe in selling customer information. However, as required by the new California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), you may record your preference to view or remove your personal information by completing the form below.
