The Roundup litigation against Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, has become one of the most significant mass tort cases in modern U.S. history. At the heart of the legal battle are allegations that glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup herbicide, causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and other forms of cancer. The litigation has drawn worldwide attention to the dangers of chemical exposure, corporate responsibility, and the role of regulatory agencies in ensuring public safety. In this article, we will explore the origins of the Roundup lawsuits, the scientific evidence surrounding glyphosate and cancer, the legal proceedings, and the broader implications for environmental and corporate law.
Roundup was first introduced by Monsanto in 1974 and quickly became the world's most popular herbicide due to its effectiveness in killing weeds without harming crops. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, works by inhibiting an enzyme pathway necessary for plant growth. This innovation allowed farmers to control weeds more efficiently, boosting crop yields and revolutionizing modern agriculture. Monsanto aggressively marketed Roundup as a safe and easy-to-use herbicide, expanding its use from large-scale farms to home gardens and public parks.
Over the decades, Roundup became ubiquitous in agriculture and landscaping, especially with the advent of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) designed to be resistant to glyphosate. This allowed farmers to spray Roundup directly on their crops without damaging them. By the early 2000s, glyphosate-based herbicides were being used on millions of acres of farmland globally.
Despite its widespread adoption, concerns about glyphosate’s safety began to surface as early as the 1980s, when studies hinted at potential health risks. However, Monsanto and regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintained that Roundup was safe when used according to label instructions.
The heart of the Roundup litigation centers on whether glyphosate causes cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a type of cancer that affects the lymphatic system. For decades, the scientific community has been divided on this issue, with conflicting studies and regulatory assessments fueling the debate.
In March 2015, the debate over glyphosate’s safety took a dramatic turn when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization (WHO), classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A). The IARC based its classification on studies that showed an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma among individuals exposed to glyphosate, as well as evidence of DNA damage in laboratory animals exposed to the chemical.
The IARC’s classification sent shockwaves through the scientific and agricultural communities. For the first time, a respected international health agency had suggested a link between glyphosate and cancer. The classification also became a key piece of evidence for plaintiffs in the Roundup litigation.
Despite the IARC’s findings, regulatory agencies in several countries, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have maintained that glyphosate is safe when used properly. The EPA, for example, released a report in 2017 concluding that glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" based on its review of the available data.
Critics of the EPA’s stance argue that the agency relied too heavily on industry-funded studies and failed to adequately assess the potential long-term health risks of glyphosate exposure. This divergence in scientific opinion has been a focal point in the Roundup litigation, with plaintiffs accusing Monsanto of influencing regulatory agencies and downplaying the risks associated with glyphosate.
The first lawsuits against Monsanto over glyphosate’s alleged link to cancer were filed in 2015, shortly after the IARC’s classification. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits claimed that long-term exposure to Roundup had caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto had failed to warn the public about the herbicide’s potential dangers.
The lawsuits quickly gained momentum, with thousands of plaintiffs joining the legal battle against Monsanto. By 2020, over 125,000 claims had been filed in the U.S. alone, making the Roundup litigation one of the largest mass tort cases in history.
In August 2018, the first Roundup cancer case to go to trial resulted in a landmark victory for the plaintiff, Dewayne Johnson, a former school groundskeeper who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of using Roundup. Johnson's legal team presented evidence showing that Monsanto had known about glyphosate’s potential risks for years but had failed to warn consumers or modify the product’s labeling.
The jury found Monsanto liable for Johnson’s cancer and awarded him $289 million in damages, including $250 million in punitive damages. The verdict sent shockwaves through the legal and corporate world, as it marked the first time a jury had found Monsanto responsible for a cancer diagnosis linked to glyphosate. While the award was later reduced to $78 million on appeal, the verdict emboldened thousands of other plaintiffs to pursue their cases.
Following the Johnson verdict, several more high-profile Roundup trials took place, with plaintiffs securing significant victories in each case:
- Hardeman v. Monsanto (March 2019): A federal jury awarded Edwin Hardeman $80 million after finding that Roundup had caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The case was notable for being the first Roundup trial to take place in federal court.
- Pilliod v. Monsanto (May 2019): A California jury awarded Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a married couple who both developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup for years, more than $2 billion in damages. The verdict was later reduced to $87 million, but it remained one of the largest personal injury awards in U.S. history.
These verdicts sent a clear message to Monsanto (now owned by Bayer): juries were not convinced by the company’s arguments that glyphosate was safe, and they were willing to impose massive punitive damages for what they saw as corporate misconduct.
Throughout the litigation, Monsanto has vigorously defended glyphosate, arguing that the scientific evidence does not support a causal link between Roundup and cancer. The company has pointed to the findings of regulatory agencies like the EPA and EFSA, which have repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is safe when used according to label instructions.
Monsanto has also questioned the validity of the IARC’s findings, accusing the agency of relying on outdated studies and flawed methodologies. The company has argued that the vast majority of studies show no increased risk of cancer from glyphosate exposure and that plaintiffs’ claims are based on "junk science."
In addition to defending the safety of glyphosate, Monsanto has sought to challenge the legal basis of the lawsuits. The company has filed appeals in several cases, arguing that the trial courts allowed improper evidence to be presented to juries and that the large punitive damage awards were excessive.
In 2018, Bayer, the German pharmaceutical giant, acquired Monsanto for $63 billion, inheriting both its profitable product portfolio and its legal liabilities. As the number of Roundup lawsuits continued to rise, Bayer found itself facing mounting pressure to resolve the litigation.
In June 2020, Bayer announced a historic $10.9 billion settlement to resolve most of the Roundup litigation. The settlement covered approximately 100,000 claims but left open the possibility for future lawsuits. Bayer also agreed to set aside $1.25 billion to address potential future claims from individuals who had not yet developed cancer but might in the future due to glyphosate exposure.
While the settlement provided a measure of relief for Bayer, it did not resolve all of the company’s legal challenges. Several high-profile cases remained unresolved, and new lawsuits continued to be filed as more individuals came forward with cancer diagnoses linked to Roundup use.
The Roundup litigation has had significant implications not only for Monsanto and Bayer but also for the broader fields of environmental and corporate law. The case has raised important questions about corporate responsibility, regulatory oversight, and the role of mass tort litigation in addressing widespread harm.
One of the central issues in the Roundup litigation is the question of corporate responsibility. Plaintiffs have accused Monsanto of deliberately downplaying the risks associated with glyphosate, prioritizing profits over public health. Internal company documents, revealed during the course of the litigation, have fueled these accusations by suggesting that Monsanto sought to influence scientific research and regulatory decisions in its favor.
The case has highlighted the tension between corporate interests and public health, raising broader concerns about how companies communicate the risks of their products to consumers. For many, the Roundup litigation represents a reckoning for corporations that prioritize profit over transparency and safety.
The conflicting scientific assessments of glyphosate’s safety have also sparked debate over the role of regulatory agencies in protecting public health. Critics of the EPA and other regulatory bodies argue that these agencies have been too reliant on industry-funded studies and have failed to conduct independent, rigorous assessments of glyphosate’s long-term health risks.
The Roundup litigation has exposed the gaps in regulatory oversight and has called into question whether current regulatory frameworks are adequate to protect the public from potential harm caused by chemicals like glyphosate. This ongoing debate may lead to calls for more stringent regulations and increased transparency in the approval processes for agricultural chemicals.
The Roundup litigation is also significant in the context of environmental law and corporate accountability. As mass tort cases have gained traction, they have demonstrated that individuals and communities can hold corporations accountable for the environmental and health impacts of their products. The legal battles surrounding glyphosate have prompted discussions about the need for stronger environmental protections and the responsibilities of corporations to ensure that their products do not cause harm to the public or the environment.
As public awareness of environmental issues continues to grow, it is likely that more individuals will turn to mass tort litigation as a means of seeking justice for harm caused by corporate negligence. The Roundup cases have set a precedent for future environmental litigation, showing that juries are willing to impose significant penalties on corporations that fail to take accountability for their actions.
The Roundup litigation represents a watershed moment in the intersection of public health, corporate responsibility, and environmental law. While Bayer’s multi-billion-dollar settlement may have alleviated some of the immediate pressures faced by the company, the broader implications of this case will be felt for years to come.
The legal battles surrounding glyphosate have highlighted the importance of scientific research in informing public health decisions, as well as the necessity for regulatory agencies to prioritize consumer safety over corporate interests. As individuals continue to raise awareness about the potential dangers of chemicals like glyphosate, the Roundup litigation serves as a critical example of how mass tort law can empower victims to seek justice against powerful corporations.
Moreover, the lessons learned from the Roundup cases may influence future environmental litigation, pushing for more robust protections and more accountable practices within industries that pose risks to human health and the environment. As society becomes increasingly aware of the need for sustainable practices and safer products, the implications of the Roundup litigation will resonate within the realms of law, public policy, and corporate responsibility for generations to come.
