Monsanto's parent company, Bayer, faces thousands of Roundup cancer cases after the $ 2 billion verdict

May 20, 2019, 13:31 UT

By Phil McCausland

John Barton sprayed each day for weeks and weeks during his more than 30 years of farming a thousand gallons of Roundup to eliminate the weeds that grew in his cotton crop outside of Bakersfield, California.

By pulling on a 200-foot hose when he could not use his tractor or sometimes wielding a container containing the herbicide attached to his back, Barton or his three boys walked and sprayed, sometimes at temperatures up to 110 degrees. They came home sweat-soaked and chemical weed-killers, their clothes, their boots and socks wet and their toes slumped by deep saturation.

"They said it was as safe as table salt. It's so safe that you can drink it. And it's so effective now with GMOs, "he said, referring to genetically engineered crops by Roundup's parent company, Monsanto, to tolerate the herbicide," That's all there is to it. " they can spray it on a multitude of crops and it gets into the root structure of the weed and kills the plant totally. "

Barton, who is now 70 years old, retired from farming in 2010 and was planning to settle in northern Idaho with his wife. But in 2015, he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and quickly concluded that the miracle herbicide he had been relying on for decades had caused the formation of swollen lymph nodes that killed him.

He is now in litigation with 40 other plaintiffs in one of the approximately 11,000 cases pending against Bayer AG regarding glyphosate, the main ingredient of Roundup cocktail sold by Monsanto since the 1970s. A California federal judge ordered the company to initiate mediation to try to settle the dispute, and Monsanto has always defended the product safety. Since Bayer bought Monsanto last June, the German company's share price has fallen to nearly half of its value, in part because of the many legal difficulties faced by Monsanto.

Legal cases cause stocks to plummet

Three prosecutions this year have awarded the plaintiffs against Bayer AG considerable sums of money, the most recent of which had brought in more than $ 2 billion to a Californian couple at the beginning of last week.

Cases of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma have been diagnosed in Alva and Alberta Pilliod, of Livermore, California, after using the chemical on their lawn for years. After a five-week trial, the jury set $ 1 billion in punitive damages for the couple, as well as $ 55 million in additional damages.

"We showed them the raw data. We showed them hard science. We showed them the studies the EPA had never seen and, at each trial, they came to the same conclusion: this causes cancer, "said Brent Wisner, vice president and partner of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, who worked on all subjects. three winning cases and the most recent in the Pilliod trial.

The trial's findings came shortly after the Environmental Protection Agency said in a statement earlier this month "that glyphosate is not a carcinogen".

This statement may be what Bayer is going to strive for in future cases, which Bayer mentioned in his own remarks after the Pilliod decision last week.

"We are disappointed with the jury's decision and will appeal the verdict in this case, which directly contradicts the US Environmental Protection Agency's preliminary decision on the review of registration, consensus among key regulators." around the world that glyphosate products can be used safely and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, and the 40 years of in-depth scientific research on which their favorable conclusions are based, " they declared.

Bayer's lawyers said Wednesday in a call to reporters that they had the intention to challenge the court decision. The plan is to argue that since EPA – the highest US regulator in this field – has concluded that there is no clear link between glyphosate and cancer, Bayer is not responsible and all cases against the company must be rejected.

It does not really sound like a winning argument or a sniff test, according to Wisner.

"Legally, it's absurd," said Wisner. "There are lawsuits for drugs and products approved by the EPA and the FDA, which have been successful. So there is strong case law that says it does not relieve you of your responsibility. And on top of that, we have internal documents at Monsanto in which they admit that it's geno-toxic – they know it causes cancer. "

In the Pilliod case, the Wisner team introduced Monsanto's own warning label that provides its employees with evidence. The label encourages workers to wear chemical goggles, boots and other protection when spraying RoundUp. They also obtained an internal Monsanto study in which scientists recommended that people wearing gloves and boots use the company's garden and lawn concentrate.

Farmers have a mixed view of Roundup

Glyphosate is the most used herbicide in the United States, mainly on farms.

Its use in agriculture increased from 635,000 in 1974 to more than 1.25 million kilograms in 2014, according to a 2016 study published by the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, accounting for 74% of global consumption.

It's probably due to its power, say the experts.

"It's still an extremely effective tool for weed control," said Stanley Culpepper, professor and extension agronomist at the Department of Soil and Crop Science at the University of Georgia. "It is important to understand that if we can not control our world it will be difficult to feed the world efficiently and effectively – and that is the goal. "

Culpepper said that he was talking with a casual farmer concerned about the possible connection with cancer, but that he generally trusted the regulator and the product that acts effectively against weeds.

So, for many American farmers, despite some concerns about cancer claims, Roundup is not going anywhere – which means it's unlikely to leave the market anytime soon.

"I may have had half a dozen questions about the glyphosate situation," Culpepper said. "I am a scientist. I believe science, and I have had the ability to work with EPA scientists behind these programs – they have a fantastic science. It's the regulator, and if it's clear, I think science and we are moving in the right direction. "

Critics including public health advocates and environmental groups question whether the EPA is meeting its regulatory obligation and point out the World Health Organization's warning that the Glysophate is "probably carcinogenic".

Nevertheless, some farmers feel that taking on Roundup is like continuing their crops during a difficult financial period.

According to the USDA's Census of Agriculture released in April, more than 160,000 farms in the United States have disappeared between 2007 and 2017, and many farmers are currently facing economic hardships due to low prices commodities, the trade war with China and the many natural disasters.

But Wisner and his legal team said they were not trying to scramble an already beleaguered industry. The goal is not to remove the product from the tablets, explained Wisner, but to make sure that they are paying for misleading consumers.

"We are not suing them for the fact that their product is causing cancer," said Wisner. "We sue them because they did not tell people that it was causing cancer."

Barton said that what he wanted above all else was that the company should take responsibility for its product.

"I'm just thinking about the amount of Roundup I've used over the years, and then my sons started working for me when Monsanto claimed it was a safe product," he said. declared. "I let my sons put these sprays on their backs and I'm worried. Now, my biggest concern is as a parent. "