Judge Cancels Roundup Trials, Brings in ‘Neutral Third Party’ for Resolution

Thousands of cancer patients are suing Monsanto alleging their exposure to the company’s Roundup herbicide caused their illnesses. This is all taking spotlight in court, where recently U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria officially ordered Bayer AG and lawyers (who represent the mass of cancer patients) into mediation to seek a settlement.

Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in June 2018, lost the first of 2 trials in unanimous jury verdicts that led to large damage awards against the company.

In his order, Chhabria wrote:

“The parties should propose a mediator in their case management statement; if they cannot agree, the Court will appoint someone.”

Bayer said it would comply with the order but still planned to defend the safety of Roundup and other glyphosate-containing herbicides in court.

A third trial had been slated to begin May 20. [2]

Chhabria said he would rather see the cases organized in the multidistrict litigation before him, which would determine which lawsuits should be dismissed, which should be sent to state courts, and which cases should be sent back to where they were originally filed for trials in federal court.

Analysts predict the settlement could top $5 billion. The confidential nature of mediation would mean that Bayer manages to resolve the litigation without multimillion-dollar damning headlines the first 2 trials produced.

Thomas G. Rohback, a New York trial attorney, said:

“The confidentiality – which is also quite common – could help Bayer pay a settlement amount without making that public. Of course, the key is whether the parties can reach an agreement.”

Chhabria scheduled a meeting for May 22 to discuss the mediation efforts and possibly set a new date for the canceled trial.


[1] U.S. Right to Know

[2] The Detroit News

Woot! Los Angeles County Bans Use of Roundup Weedkiller

Roundup, the popular weed-killer linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, will not be sprayed in Los Angeles County for now after its Board of Supervisors issued a moratorium on the application of the herbicide, citing a need for more research into its potential health and environmental effects. [1]

The board asked the Department of Public Works to team up with other health officials to survey the use of glyphosate, the main active ingredient in Roundup.

In August 2018, a San Francisco jury ordered Bayer to pay a school groundskeeper $289 million in the world’s first Roundup trial. That amount was later reduced to $78.5 million. The groundskeeper had alleged in his lawsuit that exposure to glyphosate caused his terminal cancer. Then, on March 19, another San Francisco jury concluded that Roundup caused another man’s cancer. The moratorium in Los Angeles County was issued the same day.

In 2017, glyphosate was added to California’s list of carcinogenic substances under the state’s Proposition 65 law.

LA County Supervisor Kathryn Barger recommended the ban, saying:

“I am asking county departments to stop the use of this herbicide until public health and environmental professionals can determine if it’s safe for further use in LA County and explore alternative methods for vegetation management.”

Supervisor Sheila Kuehl co-authored the motion, which cites “a growing body of scientific study” of herbicide safety and its potential health effects. [2]

Kuehl said:

“In a 2015 study led by 17 experts from 11 countries, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that glyphosate should be classified as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans.’ That conclusion makes it imperative that we question any long-term use of this controversial herbicide, and that’s exactly what this motion calls for.”

Monsanto has strongly contested the IARC’s conclusion.

In a statement, Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook applauded the moratorium. [1]

“Kicking Bayer-Monsanto and its cancer-causing weedkiller off LA County property was absolutely the right call. We know glyphosate causes cancer in people and shouldn’t be sprayed anywhere – period.”

A report is expected back in 30 days. [2]


[1] U.S. News & World Report

[2] NBC Los Angeles

Jury Finds Roundup Weedkiller Caused Man’s Cancer

Bayer was dealt a huge blow on March 19 when a San Francisco federal jury unanimously agreed that Roundup weed-killer caused a man’s cancer. [1]

It is the second time a jury decided in favor of a plaintiff who had alleged that the main ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

It took the jury 5 days of deliberation to reach the conclusion that Roundup was a “substantial factor” in causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Edwin Hardeman, 70, who hails from Sonoma County, California. The plaintiff was diagnosed with the disease in 2015. [1] [2]

In August, another San Francisco jury determined that Roundup caused cancer in DeWayne Johnson, a school groundskeeper who had been exposed to high levels of Roundup on the job. In that case, the jury awarded Johnson $289 million. However, that amount was later reduced to $78 million. [1]

Johnson’s condition has been described as “terminal,” however, Hardeman’s cancer is in remission. He testified that he sprayed Roundup for nearly 3 decades to kill poison oak on his 56-acre tract in Forestville, often getting the weedkiller on his hands or inhaling it. [2]

Lawyers for Hardeman and other plaintiffs accuse Monsanto of hiding evidence of the carcinogenic nature of glyphosate from its users and of “ghost-writing” some of the purported favorable study results.

Read: Judge OK’s Controversial Evidence in Roundup-Herbicide Trials

Hardeman’s lawyers, Aimee Wagstaff and Jennifer Moore, said in a statement after the verdict:

“Now we can focus on the evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of Roundup.

Instead, it is clear from Monsanto’s actions that it does not particularly care whether its product is, in fact, giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue.”

Monsanto, the maker of Roundup at the time both Hardeman and Johnson were exposed, was acquired by Bayer in June 2018. [1]

Hardeman’s case is 1 of 3 “bellwether” trials scheduled before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria. The case could set a precedent that helps lay out the framework for the sizes of settlements in future cases. [2]

Bayer said in a statement March 19 that it is disappointed with the verdict, “but we continue to believe firmly that the science confirms glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer.”

The statement goes on to say:

“We are confident the evidence in phase two will show that Monsanto’s conduct has been appropriate and the company should not be liable for Mr. Hardeman’s cancer.”

The jury’s next step will be to decide how much Hardeman should be awarded in liability and damages.

About 10,000 Roundup lawsuits are awaiting trial, including more than 750 that have been consolidated in San Francisco’s federal court. [1][2]


[1] NPR

[2] San Francisco Chronicle

Judge Upholds Monsanto Roundup-Cancer Verdict but Cuts Award to $78.5 Million

A California judge on October 22 upheld a San Francisco jury’s verdict finding that Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide caused a former school groundskeeper’s cancer, but slashed the amount of money to be paid from $289 million to just over $78 million. [1]

In August, a jury awarded Dewayne Johnson $250 million in punitive damages to punish Monsanto (now Bayer), and $39 million in compensatory damages to cover Johnson’s lost income, as well as pain and suffering.

On October 10, Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos issued a tentative ruling granting Monsanto’s request for a judgment notwithstanding verdict, or a JNOV. It appeared at the time that the tide had turned in favor of the agritech giant, as a JNOV is the equivalent of a judge in a civil case overruling a jury’s decision.

Read: 17 Scientists Speak Out: Monsanto’s Roundup is Causing Cancer

Bolanos said in her tentative ruling that Johnson “presented no clear and convincing evidence of malice or oppression to support an award of punitive damages.” Johnson risked losing the entire $250 million punitive award against Monsanto.

Some jurors were so disturbed by Bolanos’ tentative ruling that they wrote the judge letters, pleading with her to uphold the verdict.

Attorneys on both sides were given the opportunity to respond and argue their cases, and on October 22, Bolanos reversed her tentative ruling and denied Monsanto’s request for a JNOV.

However, the Judge reduced the amount of money that Johnson will receive from $289 million to about $78 million.

Bolanos’ reason for this, she said, was that she felt the punitive award was too high and needed to closely mirror Johnson’s $39 million compensatory award.

She wrote in her ruling:

“In enforcing due process limits, the court does not sit as a replacement for the jury but only as a check on arbitrary awards.

The punitive damages award must be constitutionally reduced to the maximum allowed by due process in this case – $39,253,209.35 – equal to the amount of compensatory damages awarded by the jury based on its findings of harm to the plaintiff.”

Monsanto also sought a new trial on the punitive damages – a request Bolanos said she would reject if Johnson agreed to the smaller punitive award. If he turns his nose up at the deal, a new trial will take place.

Read: Roundup Chemicals Linked to Cancer of the Lymph System

Johnson has until December 7 to decide which direction he wants to go. His spokeswoman, Diana McKinley, said he and his attorneys are weighing their options and hadn’t made a final decision. [2]

“Although we believe a reduction in punitive damages was unwarranted and we are weighing the options, we are pleased the court did not disturb the verdict.”

Johnson’s case was the first Roundup-related lawsuit against Monsanto to go to trial. An additional 8,700 plaintiffs are waiting in the wings, all of them alleging that glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, caused them cancer. Multiply Johnson’s award by that number and Bayer is facing a liability of $680 billion. [3]


[1] CNN

[2] NBC News

[3] NPR

Sayer Ji, GreenMedInfo.com 10-23-18… “Bayer Stock Crashes After Monsanto Cancer Verdict Upheld By Judge; Analyst Estimates $800 Billion In Future Liability”

This is certainly big time news, and according to one analyst, conceivably could end up costing Monsanto over $800 billion! And hopefully is a huge step to ending the poisoning of our planet by corporations like Monsanto, Bayer, et al.

“Bayer greedily bought and swallowed the ‘poison pill’ of Monsanto without considering its true liability. Fifty-seven billion Euros of market cap down the drain later, now their headache is taking on epic proportions…

“…San Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Ramos Bolanos… [ruled on] Tuesday morning… the judge upheld the jury’s decision that the glyphosate-based weedkiller (aka Roundup) sold by Monsanto caused a California man’s terminal cancer and that Monsanto intentionally hid its dangers.

“The news quickly spread and caused an immediate crash in Bayer’s stock value, sending a powerful message to the Agrochemical industry that they are legally and financially responsible for the adverse effects caused by their unscrupulously marketed products…

“The good news is that this ruling affirms the company’s liability for causing illness from their product, and opens the door for more lawsuits and stricter regulation of agrochemicals in the future. Ian Hilliker, an analyst at Jefferies LLC in London, estimated in a note to clients that based on a class action lawsuit involving 8,700 plaintiffs believed to have cancer as a result of glyphosate exposure, Monsanto’s liability could reach $800 billion dollars.”


Bayer Stock Crashes After Monsanto Cancer Verdict Upheld By Judge; Analyst Estimates $800 Billion In Future Liability
Posted on: Tuesday, October 23rd 2018 at 7:15 am; Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder
This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2018… Visit our Re-post guidelines

Bayer greedily bought and swallowed the ‘poison pill’ of Monsanto without considering its true liability. Fifty-seven billion Euros of market cap down the drain later, now their headache is taking on epic proportions…

Growing uncertainty about whether San Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Ramos Bolanos would rule in favor or against Bayer’s appeal of the Monsanto Cancer Verdict were resolved Tuesday morning as the judge upheld the jury’s decision that the glyphosate-based weedkiller (aka Roundup) sold by Monsanto caused a California man’s terminal cancer and that Monsanto intentionally hid its dangers.

The news quickly spread and caused an immediate crash in Bayer’s stock value, sending a powerful message to the Agrochemical industry that they are legally and financially responsible for the adverse effects caused by their unscrupulously marketed products despite receiving a regulatory pass from government agencies like the EPA, USDA, and FDA that have traditionally acted as industry cheerleaders.

The judge decided to reduce the punitive damage award from the original total of $289 million following a verdict reached earlier this summer, down to $78.5 million. A decision which concerned jurors who decided on the higher award amount in order to send a clear message to Monsanto that they deserve to be punished for covering up the dangers of their herbicide.


The good news is that this ruling affirms the company’s liability for causing illness from their product, and opens the door for more lawsuits and stricter regulation of agrochemicals in the future. Ian Hilliker, an analyst at Jefferies LLC in London, estimated in a note to clients that based on a class action lawsuit involving 8,700 plaintiffs believed to have cancer as a result of glyphosate exposure, Monsanto’s liability could reach $800 billion dollars. To put this in perspective, the original Bayer-Monsanto buyout offer was $57 billion dollars. Clearly, this no longer looks like an “asset” to Bayer and its stockholders.

Biggest destruction of capital in German stock market history? #Bayer has lost €57.7bn in market cap mainly driven by its acquisition of #Monsanto. pic.twitter.com/5hFDujAqg3

— Holger Zschaepitz (@Schuldensuehner) October 23, 2018

In the tweet above, a German analyst points out that Bayer’s Monsanto aquisition may have precipitated the largest destruction of market capitalization in German stock market history, standing at about 57.7 billion Euros in losses thus far.


Learn more about Bayer’s history in the video below produced by independent media site Corbet Report:

Note: The case is Johnson v. Monsanto Co., CGC-16-550128, California Superior Court, County of San Francisco (San Francisco).

Judge Could Overturn $289 Million Verdict in Monsanto Roundup Case

In August, a San Francisco jury awarded $289 million to a former school groundskeeper who alleged that exposure to Roundup caused his cancer. Now, the judge in the case is considering slashing how much the dying man actually receives. [1]

DeWayne Johnson won the landmark case against Monsanto (now Bayer), claiming that a concentrated version of Roundup herbicide caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Johnson’s lawsuit against the company was the first of more than 4,000 others waiting to go to trial. In handing down the massive award, jurors agreed with Johnson’s allegations that Monsanto failed to warn the public about Roundup’s cancer risks.

Of the $289 million, $250 million was awarded for punitive damages, while the remaining nearly-$39 million was awarded for compensatory damages, including Johnson’s lost income, and pain and suffering.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos made a tentative ruling on October 10 that could overturn the $250 in punitive damages and prompt a new trial.

In the ruling, Bolanos said Johnson “presented no clear and convincing evidence of malice or oppression to support an award of punitive damages,” tentatively granting Monsanto’s request for a judgment notwithstanding verdict (JNV). This indicates that the judge plans on overturning the jury’s decision.

Jurors in the case are urging Bolanos to let the award stand. [2]

In a letter to the judge, juror Gary Kitahata wrote:

“You may not have been convinced by the evidence, but we were. I urge you to respect and honor our verdict and the 6 weeks of our lives that we dedicated to this trial.”

Another juror, Robert Howard, told the judge in a letter that the possibility that “our unanimous verdict could be summarily overturned demeans our system of justice and shakes my confidence in that system.”

Roundup contains a highly controversial weed-killing chemical called glyphosate, which has been at the center of scientific debate for years. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a wing of the World Health Organization (WHO), concluded that glyphosate probably causes cancer in humans. Monsanto fiercely fought against the classification.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on the other hand, says glyphosate is safe. However, that decision has been called into question after it was revealed that an EPA official may have helped Monsanto “kill” a study linking glyphosate to cancer.

In 2017, California added glyphosate to its list of carcinogens under the state’s Proposition 65 law. Monsanto had sued the state in an effort to keep the chemical off the list but failed in its efforts.

Bolanos gave attorneys on both sides until October 19 to present responses before she makes a final decision.


[1] CNN

[2] San Francisco Chronicle

Journal Expresses Concern over Papers Calling Glyphosate Herbicide ‘Safe’

In a rare move, a scientific journal has issued an “Expression of Concern” and has requested corrections from the authors behind a group of papers that concluded glyphosate is safe. [1]

On September 26, the editor-in-chief and publisher of Critical Reviews in Toxicology said that 5 articles which appeared in the journal’s 2016 supplemental issue failed to adequately disclose ties to the agribusiness giant Monsanto (now Bayer), the maker of the herbicide Roundup, which contains the chemical glyphosate.

They said:

“We have requested corrigenda from the authors to provide additional disclosure as to contributions to the articles. To date, we have only received corrigenda for 3 of the 5 articles that have been agreed on by all authors. We have not received an adequate explanation as to why the necessary level of transparency was not met on first submission.”

The scientific findings of the flagged articles remain the same and the title of the supplemental issue, An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate, has not been changed.

The editor-in-chief and publisher said:

“When reading the articles, we recommend that readers take this context into account. We will continue to work to update these articles and ensure full discloser of all contributions to them.”

Monsanto was accused in the past of ghost-writing safety reviews of glyphosate, allegedly hiring academics to put their names on the papers to hide the cancer risks associated with Roundup.

Read: Monsanto’s Deep Legacy of Corruption and Cover-Up

After the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015, internal Monsanto e-mails revealed that Henry I. Miller, an academic and outspoken supporter of genetically modified (GM) crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that all but mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’ website that same year attacking the IARC’s conclusion.

When Monsanto asked Miller if he would like to write an article on the topic, Miller requested a “high-quality draft” that he could add to, instead of writing the piece from scratch.

The article was published under Miller’s name, with no mention of Monsanto’s role in drafting it. Yet, the assertion was that opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.”

Mia Carbonell, a Forbes spokesperson, said:

“All contributors to Forbes.com sign a contract requiring them to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and only publish content that is their own original writing. When it came to our attention that Mr. Miller violated these terms, we removed his blog from Forbes.com and ended our relationship with him.”

Even a former Monsanto employee viewed the “collaborative effort” as dishonest and unethical, and referred to it as ghost-writing.

By the way, Miller is a lobbyist who tried to discredit scientists who linked tobacco use with cancer and heart disease to protect the industry.

Same Deception, Different Day

Each of the 5 articles flagged by Critical Reviews in Toxicology was highly critical of the IARC’s designation of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. [1]

Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, said: [2]

“It’s deplorable that Monsanto was the puppet master behind the supposedly ‘independent’ reviews of glyphosate safety. These papers were manufactured as a way to counteract the World Health Organization’s findings on glyphosate’s cancer risks. They could mislead the public in dangerous ways and should be completely retracted.”

The documents were used as evidence in the first glyphosate trial involving allegations that the weed-killing chemical causes cancer. A San Francisco jury awarded a former school groundskeeper $289 million in damages after finding that glyphosate was a “substantial contributing factor” to the California man’s terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Read: Monsanto and Others Caught Paying Internet “Trolls” to Attack Activists

It was revealed through the documents that Monsanto improperly edited the articles and directly paid some of the authors a consulting fee for their work.

The Declaration of Interest statement that was originally published with the papers, according to the Center for Biological Diversity:

  • Failed to disclose that at least 2 panelists who authored the review worked as consultants for, and were directly paid by, Monsanto for their work on the paper;
  • Failed to disclose that at least 1 Monsanto employee extensively edited the manuscript and was adamant about retaining inflammatory language critical of the IARC assessment – against some of the authors’ wishes; the disclosure falsely stated that no Monsanto employee reviewed the manuscript.

A representative from the publisher of the articles, Taylor and Francis, told the Center in a September 26 e-mail:

“We note that, despite requests for full disclosure, the original Acknowledgements and Declaration of Interest statements provided to the journal did not fully represent the involvement of Monsanto or its employees or contractors in the authorship of the articles.”

So far, however, Taylor and Francis have refused to issue a retraction for the papers, contradicting its own Corrections Policy. Furthermore, the title of the supplemental issue still contains the phrase, “an independent review.”

Donley said:

“This peek behind the Monsanto curtain raises serious questions about the safety of glyphosate. Monsanto’s unethical behavior and the publisher’s response undermine scientific integrity and ultimately public health.”


[1] EcoWatch

[2] Center for Biological Diversity

Residents in Florida’s Martin County Rally to Ban Glyphosate

Residents gathered in Stuart, Florida, in August to protest the use of Roundup in their community and demand a ban on the herbicide. [1]

In addition to concerns that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, causes cancer, a much more immediate issue brought about the rally: fears that the chemical contributes to toxic algae blooms in Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie River.

Protestor Jackie Trancynger said:

“Let’s ban the use of glyphosate, which is the herbicide in Roundup and some other products, and at least we’ll be doing something to retard the toxicity because that’s what I’m afraid of.”

Florida is currently grappling with “red tide” algae blooms on the west coast and blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) in inland waterways. The noxious-smelling growths emit a putrid smell and can cause respiratory irritation in humans, among other health problems. [2]

Source: Great Lakes Connection

Read: Could Blue-Green Algae Blooms be a Cause of Alzheimer’s, ALS?

In mid-August, Florida Gov. Rick Scott declared a state of emergency amid a drop in tourism, breathing problems among residents, and the mass deaths of fish, eels, porpoises, turtles, manatees, and even a 26-foot whale shark that has left local beaches littered with animal carcasses.

There have been reports of breathing difficulties among seniors living in retirement communities, and a recent study shows that hospital visits due to breathing problems spike 50% during red-tide blooms.

Little is known about what causes such massive algae blooms, but scientists believe the problem is exacerbated by pollution and climate change. Some locals are convinced that glyphosate contributes to the blooms’ uncontrollable growth. [1]

There is evidence to suggest the protesters are right. For example, a 2009 study found that Roundup “may be contributing to the growth of harmful algal blooms on Lake Erie.” [3]

Read: Even Legal Levels of Glyphosate may Harm Freshwater Ecosystems

While glyphosate doesn’t create the blue-green algae blooms like those seen in Martin County, there is evidence that the Roundup ingredient feeds them. The authors of the 2009 study found that:

“…many cyanobacteria present in Lake Erie have the genes allowing the uptake of phosphonates, and these cyanobacteria can grow using glyphosate and other phosphonates as a sole source of phosphorus.”

According to Geoff Norris, an emeritus professor with the University of Toronto’s Department of Earth Sciences, glyphosate:

“…has been used heavily in the agricultural areas around Lake Okeechobee and upstream in the Kissimmee River watershed for at least 25 years. Glyphosate provides a source of phosphorus for blue-green bacteria and recent research by others suggest that glyphosate enhances the growth of blue-green bacteria, which become tolerant and absorb glyphosate directly.”

Source: NPR

If the protestors were hoping for an on-the-spot glyphosate ban, they were sorely disappointed. Martin County officials said they would need to do their own research into glyphosate before even contemplating a ban. [1]

In the meantime, officials are mulling the idea of limiting or banning the use of biosolids – sewage sludge used to treat soil that many believe contribute to the explosive growth of algae blooms.


[1] WPBF ABC News

[2] The Washington Post

[3] TCPalm

Great Lakes Connection


Jury Orders Monsanto to Pay $289 Million in World’s 1st Roundup Trial

A jury has awarded $250 million in punitive damages and nearly $40 million in compensatory damages to a former school groundskeeper who alleged in a lawsuit that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, caused him cancer. [1]

The plaintiff, DeWayne Johnson, was seeking $400 million in punitive damages and $39 million in compensatory damages from the biotech company, according to his attorney.

Johnson’s lawsuit was the world’s first Roundup case to go to trial. The August 10 ruling could set a huge precedent for the thousands of other cases facing Monsanto (now Bayer) that have been filed on behalf of victims or their loved ones. His case was the first to go to trial because doctors said he was near death. In California, where the trial took place, dying plaintiffs can be granted expedited trials.

Read: Roundup Chemicals Linked to Cancer of the Lymph System

Ken Cook, President of the Environmental Working Group, said: [2]

“Monsanto made Roundup the oxycontin of pesticides and now the addiction and damage they have caused have come home to roost. This won’t cure DeWayne Lee Johnson’s cancer, but it will send a strong message to the renegade company.”


While working as a groundskeeper for a school district near San Francisco, Johnson, 46, applied a concentrated version of Roundup 20 to 30 times a year. [1]

On 2 separate occasions, Johnson was accidentally doused in large amounts of the herbicide, the first of which occurred in 2012. Two years later, he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

About 80% of the dying man’s body is covered in lesions, which was the first sign to Johnson and his wife that something was terribly wrong.

Johnson’s doctors say he is unlikely to live past 2020, and his wife now works 2, 40-hour-per-week jobs to support her ailing husband and their 2 sons. [1] [2]

The Debate over Glyphosate

After 3 days of deliberation, the San Francisco Superior Court of California jury concluded that Monsanto failed to warn Johnson and the general public about the cancer risks associated with Roundup. [3]

Monsanto has always insisted that Roundup is safe for use, and railed against the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) 2015 assessment that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on the other hand, has waffled on whether to consider glyphosate a carcinogen. After conducting its own review of the chemical in 2017, it concluded that glyphosate is likely not a carcinogen.

Read: EPA Official Accused of Helping Monsanto “Kill” Glyphosate-Cancer Link

However, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment added glyphosate to its list of known carcinogens – a move that prompted Monsanto to file a lawsuit against the state, which it subsequently lost. [2]

In a statement, Monsanto said it would appeal the verdict. [3]

“Today’s decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews … support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer.”

We here at Natural Society wish Mr. Johnson and his family the best. We will continue to monitor Johnson’s case and the others awaiting trial and will keep you updated as things progress.


[1] CNN

[2] USA Today

[3] Reuters