A death and a settlement as Bayer continues trying to end Roundup litigation

Print Email Share Tweet

Seven months after Bayer AG announced plans for a sweeping settlement of U.S. Roundup cancer litigation, the German owner of Monsanto Co. continues to work to settle tens of thousands of claims brought by people suffering from cancer they say was caused by Monsanto’s weed killing products. On Wednesday, one more case appeared to find closure, though the plaintiff did not live to see it.

Lawyers for Jaime Alvarez Calderon, agreed earlier this week to a settlement offered by Bayer after U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria on Monday denied summary judgment in favor of Monsanto, allowing the case to move closer to a trial.

The settlement will go to Alvarez’s four sons because their 65-year-old father, a longtime winery worker in Napa County, California, died just over a year ago from non-Hodgkin lymphoma he blamed on his work spraying Roundup around winery property for years.

In a hearing held in federal court Wednesday, Alvarez family lawyer David Diamond told Judge Chhabria that the settlement would close out the case.

After the hearing, Diamond said Alvarez had worked in the wineries for 33 years, using a backpack sprayer to apply Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides to sprawling acreage for the Sutter Home group of wineries. He would often go home in the evenings with clothing wet with herbicide due to leaks in the equipment and weed killer that drifted in the wind.  He was diagnosed in 2014 with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, undergoing multiple rounds of chemotherapy and other treatments before dying in December 2019.

Diamond said he was happy to settle the case but has “400 plus” more Roundup cases still unresolved.

He is not alone. At least half a dozen other U.S. law firms have Roundup plaintiffs they are seeking trial settings for in 2021 and beyond.

Since buying Monsanto in 2018, Bayer has been struggling to figure out how to put an end to the litigation that includes more than 100,000 plaintiffs in the United States. The company lost all three trials held to date and has lost the early rounds of appeals seeking to overturn the trial losses. Juries in each of the trials found that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides do cause cancer and that Monsanto spent decades hiding the risks.

In addition to efforts to resolve claims currently pending, Bayer also hopes to create a mechanism for resolving potential claims that it could face from Roundup users who develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the future. Its initial plan for handling future litigation was rejected by Judge Chhabria and the company has yet to announce a new plan.

Monsanto Roundup and Dicamba Trial Tracker

Print Email Share Tweet

March 18, 2019: Jurors Want to Hear From Plaintiff Again

Today marks the beginning of the fourth week of the Hardeman V. Monsanto Roundup cancer trial, and jurors were still deliberating over the sole question that they must answer to close out the first phase of the trial and potentially move into the second phase.

The six jurors let Judge Vince Chhabria know on Friday that as they deliberate they want to have plaintiff Edwin Hardeman’s testimony read back to them. Chhabria said that would take place first thing Monday morning.

At Monsanto’s request, the trial has been divided into two phases. The first phase deals only with the question of whether or not jurors find that Hardeman’s exposure to Roundup was a “substantial factor” in causing his non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

If the jurors unanimously answer yes to that question the trial moves into a second phase in which Hardeman’s attorneys will put on evidence aimed at showing that Monsanto knew of the cancer risks of Roundup but actively worked to hide that information from consumers, in part by manipulating the scientific record.

 If the trial does go to the second phase, the plaintiff will  lack one key expert witness – Charles Benbrook –  after the judge ruled that he would sharply limit Benbrook’s testimony regarding Monsanto’s corporate conduct.

 Hardeman’s lead counsel Aimee Wagstaff and her co-counsel Jennifer Moore plan to spend the day in the courthouse Monday as the jury deliberates after again raising the ire of Judge Chhabria. Chhabria was annoyed Friday that the lawyers took longer than he expected to get to the courthouse after they were notified that all parties must convene to address the jurors’ request to hear Hardeman’s testimony again.

Chhabria sanctioned Wagstaff the first week of the trial for what he called “several acts of misconduct during her opening statement.” One of her transgressions, according to Chhabria, was spending too much time telling jurors about her client and his cancer diagnosis.  

March 15, 2019: Google Ads Raise Concerns About Geofencing

(UPDATE 3:30 pm Pacific time- Jurors retiring for the day after failing again to reach a verdict. Testimony from plaintiff Edwin Hardeman to be read back to jurors Monday morning at their request. Judge Chhabria remains irritated with plaintiff’s attorneys, annoyed at the time it took them to arrive at court Friday afternoon.)

Jurors were back in court today resuming deliberations after a day off on Thursday. There is but one question they must answer:  “Did Mr. Hardeman prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his exposure to Roundup was a substantial factor in causing his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma?”

The judge admonished the jurors that if they pondered that question on their day off they should not seek out information about the safety of Roundup or read news articles or scientific studies about the matter. They should confine themselves to consideration only of evidence presented at trial.

Interestingly, yesterday in the San Francisco area google ads were popping up on smart phones and computers promoting the safety of Roundup. One site in particular – Weeding Wisely – was coming in at the top of  some Google sites, offering such headlines as “Fear of  ‘chemicals’ results from misunderstanding” and “Look at the science, not scare tactics, of glyphosate herbicide.” Also this one – “Weed Killer Hype Lacks Scientific Support.” 

 
The google ad renewed fears by some that Monsanto and Bayer may be engaging in geofencing, a term used to describe a tactic for delivering specific messaging to individuals within specific geographic areas. 
 
Last month Hardeman attorney Jennifer Moore alerted Judge Chhabria to fears held by Hardeman’s legal team that Monsanto might have engaged in geofencing before and would do so again to try to influence jurors.  Moore told the judge they were considering “whether we were going to file a temporary restraining order to prohibit Monsanto from any kind of geofencing or targeting jurors through social media or pay-per-click ads. And so I would just ask that that not be done. We’re not doing it on our side, but I just don’t want any targeting of jurors, their social media or Internet means.”
 
Chhabria replied “Isn’t it, like — doesn’t it go without saying that it would be totally inappropriate?  Obviously nobody on either side — nobody within a hundred miles of either side may attempt to target any juror or prospective juror with any sort of messaging.”
 
Geofencing is a popular advertising technique that delivers specific messaging/content to anyone within a specific geographic area designated by the company or group paying for the ad. The area can be very small, a mile radius around a specific address, for instance. Or it can be much larger. Anyone within that designated area using an app on a smart phone – such as a weather app or a game – would then be delivered the ad. 
 
Whether or not Monsanto did or would use the tactic to try to influence jurors would be almost impossible to prove. Monsanto attorney Brian Stekloff responded to the concerns raised last month and the judge’s warning about geofencing by saying “I understand that they may have allegations, but I’m not accepting those allegations…..  of course we will abide by that…”  
 
 The placement of google ads for certain search terms does not necessarily mean anyone was targeting jurors with geofencing. And it’s worth noting that google ad buys have been – and remain – a popular strategy employed by plaintiffs’ attorneys seeking new Roundup clients. 
 

March 14, 2019: Trial & Jury Day Off 

Jurors have the day off today but the lawyers do not. Chhabria is holding a hearing with attorneys for both sides at 12:30 pm Pacific time to discuss the scope of the second phase, if a second phase is held.

Among the issues to be discussed, plaintiff’s lawyers are renewing their request to be able to present testimony about Monsanto’s efforts to discredit French scientist Gilles-Éric Séralini after publication of his 2012 study findings about rats fed water dosed with Roundup.  Internal Monsanto records show a coordinated effort to get the Seralini paper retracted, including this email string.

Monsanto employees apparently were so proud of what they called a “multimedia event that was designed for maximum negative publicity” against Seralini that they designated it as an “achievement” worth recognition.

Evidence demonstrates “that the Séralini story is central to Monsanto’s failure to test as well as its efforts to manipulate public opinion,” Edwin Hardeman’s attorneys argue. As well, they say in their court filing, “the testimony reveals that Monsanto responded to the study by attempting to undermine and discredit Dr. Séralini, which is further evidence “that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer,” but “[focuses] instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue.” ”  

“The Séralini Story is Relevant to Monsanto’s Efforts to Undermine Scientists Raising Concerns about Glyphosate,” Hardeman’s attorneys argue.

Lawyers for Hardeman want expert witness Charles Benbrook to be allowed to testify about this example of Monsanto’s corporate conduct “post-use,” meaning actions by Monsanto that took place after Hardeman stopped using Roundup.

Judge Chhabria earlier ruled that the evidence regarding efforts to discredit Seralini could not be introduced because those efforts took place after Hardeman’s Roundup use ended and so would not have impacted him. 

On Wednesday, Chhabria also ruled that evidence of Monsanto’s efforts to discredit the International Agency for Research on Cancer after it classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen would be excluded from a second phase of the trial because it took place after Hardeman’s Roundup use ended.  

Even as both sides prepare for a second phase, the lack of a quick jury decision does not bode well for Hardeman. His attorneys were hoping for a quick unanimous decision by the jurors in their favor. Any decision by the jury must be unanimous or the case can be declared a mistrial.

March 13, 2019: Jury Deliberating

(Video update)

(UPDATE 5:45 p.m. Pacific time – Jury has retired for the evening with no verdict. Deliberations to resume Friday.) 

Judge Chhabria instructed lawyers for both sides to be ready to present opening statements for the second phase of the trial today if jurors come back this morning with a verdict. The second phase only occurs, however, if the jurors first find unanimously for plaintiff Edwin Hardeman in the first phase, which dealt solely with the question of causation.

The question that must be answered on the jury verdict form is fairly straightforward:

Did Mr. Hardeman prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his exposure to Roundup was a substantial factor in causing his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma?

It will take all six jurors to answer yes to that question in order for the trial to continue. If the jurors are split in how they answer the question, the judge has said he would declare a mistrial.

The judge guided the jurors in how to consider that question and how to evaluate the evidence presented to them in a 17-page list of instructions.

The jurors are allowed to request to look at specific exhibits and pieces of evidence but they are not allowed to see transcripts of the previous days of testimony. The judge said that if jurors want to review the testimony of a particular witness they can ask to have that witness’s testimony, or a portion of that witness’s testimony, read back to them but the lawyers and judge would need to be present for that.

If jurors return a verdict in favor of Hardeman on Wednesday afternoon, opening statements for phase two will take place Friday. 

Chhabria kept a tight rein on closing arguments Tuesday, prohibiting Hardeman’s lead attorney Aimee Wagstaff from showing a photo of Hardeman and his wife in her closing slide presentation. He told Wagstaff that the photo was “not relevant” and said that he did not “need to hear
further argument about that.” When she asked for his rationale, Chhabria simply repeated his belief that it was not relevant.  

Monsanto filed a motion for a directed verdict on Tuesday, arguing that Hardeman has presented “insufficient general causation evidence,” and specifically attacked the credibility of pathologist Dennis Weisenburger, one of Hardeman’s expert witnesses. Judge Chhabria denied the motion. 

Separately, the upcoming Pilliod V. Monsanto case in Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland was looking at a sizable jury pool of more than 200 people. They plan to select 17, with 12 jurors and five alternates.  The case may not begin until March 27 or March 28 due to the lengthy jury selection process. 

March 12, 2019: Concerns over Judge’s Jury Instructions

(Transcript from today’s proceedings)

(UPDATE, 3 p.m. Pacific Time – Closing arguments are completed. The jury has received instructions for deliberations.)

Closing arguments got underway Tuesday. With the first phase of Hardeman V. Monsanto winding down plaintiff Edwin Hardeman’s attorneys issued a strong objection to Judge Vince Chhabria’s plans for instructing the jury about how to consider the issue of causation.

The way Chhabria worded his instructions makes it “impossible” for Hardeman to prevail, attorney Jennifer Moore wrote in a letter to the judge. California law sets for instructions that causation is determined when a substance or action is a “substantial factor” in causing an outcome. But the judge’s instructions would require jurors to find that Roundup was the sole factor that caused Hardeman’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Moore argued.

Judge Chhabria replied by saying he could not give “the standard California multiple causation instruction” because plaintiff’s attorneys failed to present evidence that Hardeman’s cancer was due to multiple factors. He did say, however, that he could modify the instructions slightly to try to address the concerns. In the final instructionChhabria added wording that said asubstantial factor “does not have to be the only cause of the harm.”

Monsanto has argued that Hardeman’s cancer is not due toexposure to glyphosate-based herbicides but more likely due to the hepatitis C Hardeman had for many years.

This is also an interesting little nugget in the jury instructions:

Meanwhile, in the upcoming Pilliod V. Monsanto case, motion hearings and discussion of hardship claims for prospective jurors begins next week in Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland, not far from downtown San Francisco where the Hardeman case may still be underway if it goes to the second phase.

Opening statements in the Pilliod trial could begin March 21 but more likely will take place March 25 or later depending on how long the jury selection process takes.

 
March 11, 2019: Hepatitis C and… Hugh Grant?
 
Monsanto’s legal team on Monday presented testimony from Dr. Alexandra Levine, a hematologist/oncologist with City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, seeking to convince the jury that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides was not a cause of Hardeman’s cancer, and that a more likely factor is the hepatitis C Hardeman had for many years. Levine testified that she has seen “many, many,thousands of patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma,” and she is in factconsidered a specialist in that specific disease.
 
Judge Chhabria said last week that he would like to see this first phase of the trial wrapped up early this week, meaning the case should be with the jury soon. A verdict requires all six jurors to be unanimous in their finding regarding whether or not Hardeman’s exposure to Roundup “was a substantial factor” in causing his cancer. The judge will define for jurors what that means. (See Friday’s entry for more details.)
 
If the jury does not unanimously decide either for Hardeman or Monsanto then the case would be a mistrial. Chhabria has also said that if that happens he is considering retrying it in May.
 
If the jury finds for Hardeman on causation, the trial would quickly move into Phase II using the same jury. And that is where things will really start to get interesting. Hardeman’s attorneys plan to call several Monsanto executives for testimony, including former Monsanto Chairman and CEO Hugh Grant. Grant spent more than 35 years at the company and was named CEO in 2003. He led the company until its acquisition by Bayer AG last summer.
 
Additionally, lawyers for Hardeman plan to call Roger McClellan, editor of the scientific journalCritical Reviews in Toxicology(CRT), which published a series of papers in September 2016 that rebuked the finding by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) finding that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen. The papers purported to be written by independent scientists who found that the weight of evidence showed the weed killer was unlikely to pose any carcinogenic risk to people.
 
However, internal Monsanto documentsshow that the papers were conceptualized from the outset as a strategy by Monsanto to discredit IARC. One of Monsanto’s top scientists not onlyreviewed the manuscriptsbut had a hand in drafting and editing them, though that was not disclosed by CRT.
 
Hardeman’s lawyers additionally said they plan to call Doreen Manchester, of Croplife America, the agrochemical industry’s lobbying organization. Manchester’s role at CropLife has been helping “lead federal and state litigation to support pesticide regulatory issues.”
 
March 8, 2019: Phase 1 Nears End, Judge Ponders Jury Instructions
 
Lawyers for plaintiff Edwin Hardeman rested their case on Friday, giving Monsanto a turn to put on its own witnesses in this first phase of the case.
 
Judge Chhabria has indicated he would like to see the first phase of the trial wrapped up by early next week, and he has ordered attorneys for both sides to be ready to discuss and debate two proposed sets of instructions for him to give the jury for deliberations regarding the definition of “causation.”
 
For Hardeman’s case to be allowed to proceed to a Phase 2 in which damages could be awarded, the group of six jurors must be unanimous in finding that Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, so the judge’s instructions about how the element of causation is defined is a critical point.
 
The judge’s first option reads as follows: “To prevail on the question of medical causation, Mr. Hardeman must prove by apreponderance of the evidence that Roundup was a substantial factor in causing his nonHodgkin’s lymphoma. A substantial factor is a factor that a reasonable person would consider tohave contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor.If you conclude that Mr. Hardeman has proven that his exposure to Roundup was asubstantial factor in causing his NHL, then you should find for Mr. Hardeman even if you believethat other risk factors were substantial factors as well.”
The judge’s second option has the same first three lines as the first option but then adds this: “Conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurredwithout that conduct.”
 
Option 2 also changes the last line of the instruction to say: “However, if you conclude that Mr. Hardeman has proven that his exposureto Roundup was sufficient on its own to cause his NHL, then you should find for Mr. Hardemaneven if you believe that other risk factors were also sufficient to cause his NHL.”
 
A big part of Monsanto’s defense is to suggest that other factors could be the cause of Hardeman’s cancer, including a struggle with hepatitis C. Hardeman’s team has said that he was cured in 2006 of hepatitis C but Monsanto’s team argues that cell damage from the hepatitis was a potential contributor to his cancer.
 
Monsanto expert witness Dr. Daniel Arber in his pre-trial report wrote that Hardeman has many risk factors for NHL, and said: “There is no indication that Roundup played any role in the development of his NHL,
and there are no pathological features to suggest a cause of his lymphoma.”
 
Judge Chhabria has ruledthat Arber cannot testify that the hepatitis C caused Hardeman’s NHL but ruled Thursdaythat Arber can explain that Hardeman’s lengthy exposure to hepatitis C left him at riskof developing NHL even after his virus had been successfully treated.
 
Several new documents have been filed by both parties related to evidence and jury instructions. See them at Monsanto Papers Hardeman page.
 
March 7, 2019: Judge Has Harsh Words for Monsanto
 
Judge Vince Chhabria issued a stinging response to Monsanto’s motion for summary judgment on Thursday, stating in his order that there was plenty of evidence that the company’s glyphosate herbicides – namely Roundup – could have caused plaintiff Edwin Hardeman’s cancer.
 
“To take just one example,” the judge wrote, “the De Roos (2003) studysupports a conclusion that glyphosate is a risk factor for NHL, yet Monsanto fails to mention it inits motion. Monsanto cannot prevail on a motion for summary judgment by simply ignoring largeswaths of evidence.”
 
He also said there was “sufficient evidence” to support a punitive damages award against Monsanto if the jury finds for Hardeman.
 
“The plaintiffs have presented a great deal of evidence that Monsanto has not taken aresponsible, objective approach to the safety of its product,” Judge Chhabria stated in his ruling.
 
The judge concluded: “Although the evidence that Roundup causescancer is quite equivocal, there is strong evidence from which a jury could conclude thatMonsanto 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 andlegitimate concerns about the issue.”
 

March 7, 2019: No Trial Today, But a Story About the Last Trial

(UPDATE – See Tim Litzenburg counter claim and motion to strike )

The historic win last summer of California groundskeeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson over Monsanto and its new owner Bayer made news around the world and made some of Johnson’s attorneys virtual celebrities in legal circles, garnering them awards and international notoriety.

But behind the scenes of victory, the aftermath of the first-ever Roundup cancer trial has plunged Johnson’s attorneys into a bitter legal battle of their own, with allegations swirling of self-dealing, drug use and “disloyal and erratic conduct.”

In a lawsuit and counterclaim filed in Orange County Circuit Court in Virginia, The Miller Law Firm accuses attorney Tim Litzenburg, someone who has portrayed himself as Johnson’s lead trial attorney, of stealing the firm’s confidential client information with the intent of setting up his own separate law firm, even as he was failing to show up for preparatory meetings for Johnson’s trial. The complaint also alleges that Litzenburg admitted to using drugs during the Johnson trial.

“Multiple members of Mr. Johnson’s trial team observed Mr. Litzenburg acting disoriented and frantic at court,” the complaint states. “When he was permitted to argue a motion before the Court…. his delivery was jumbled and incoherent. Members of the trial team were concerned that Mr. Litzenburg was actively under the influence of drugs in the courtroom…”

The trial itself ended up being handled by other attorneys and Litzenburg was not present for the close of the trial nor the day that the jury returned a $289 million verdict against Monsanto.

Roughly one month later, on September 11, 2018, The Miller Firm terminated Litzenburg’s employment, the lawsuit states.

Litzenburg, who is now affiliated with the firm of Kincheloe, Litzenburg & Pendleton, did not respond to a request for comment, other than to say it was “an unfortunate distraction” from his work at his new firm. In past comments Litzenburg described his separation from The Miller Firm as due to a misunderstanding with Mike Miller, one of the firm’s founders.

The following are excerpts from the litigation:

 Litzenburg  asserts that The Miller Firm’s claims against him are “salacious and often purely fictional” and are due to The Miller Firm’s fears that they would lose Roundup clients to Litzenburg’s new firm. He claims he was offered $1 million by firm founder Mike Miller to walk away from his Roundup clients but declined the offer. 

March 6, 2019: Nearing the End of the First Phase

(Transcript from today’s proceedings)

Expert witness for the plaintiff Dr. Dennis Weisenburger was being cross examined Wednesday by Monsanto attorneys after extensive direct testimony for cancer victim Edwin Hardeman. Hardeman’s attorneys said they were nearing the end of the first phase of presenting their case.

Weisenburger, a pathologist specializing in studying the causes of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, testified Tuesday for more than four hours, walking jurors through scientific evidence he said shows Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide is a “substantial cause” of cancer in people who are exposed. He followed testimony by Hardeman, who spoke for just less than an hour under direct examination about his use of Roundup for decades before his cancer diagnosis in 2016.

The Guardian recapped Hardeman’s testimonyin which he said thathe sprayed Roundup once a month for three to four hours at a time around his property and sometimes felt like chemical mist blowing onto his skin.

Plaintiff’s attorneys expected to rest their case today but Weisenburger’s testimony ran so long that they now plan to rest the case when court resumes on Friday. No proceedings are scheduled for Thursday.

See documents pertaining to testimony on the Monsanto Papers page.

Separately, lawyers gathered in nearby Alameda County Superior Court for a “Sargon” hearing ahead of the March 18 start of Pilliod V. Monsanto. The Pilliod case will be the third to go to trial challenging Monsanto and its new owner Bayer over alleged carcinogenicity of Roundup products. See Pilliod case documents at this link.

March 5, 2019: Hardeman to Testify, Sick Juror or Not

(Transcript from today’s proceedings)

After a break in testimony Monday due to a sick juror, cancer victim Edwin Hardeman is slated to take the stand today in the ongoing Roundup cancer trial in federal court in San Francisco. His testimony is expected to take less than an hour.

Judge Chhabria indicated the trial will proceed today without the woman juror if she remains ill. Only six jurors are required for the case to move forward and currently there are seven.

For Hardeman’s direct examination, his attorneys plan to bring in to court a 2-gallon, pump-up sprayer to demonstrate how he applied Roundup to his property for years; how his repeated exposure actually occurred. Monsanto attorneys on Monday sought to nix the sprayer demonstration plan, arguing that it would “invite the jury to make anysort of speculation about how the use of the sprayer could haveinfluenced exposure…” but Chhabria sided with Hardeman’s lawyers, saying he would allow a brief demonstration with the sprayer. He even made a bit of a joke:

THE COURT: I mean, one helpful bit of guidance I canprovide now is that the Plaintiffs are not allowed to spray youwith the sprayer.
MS. MATTHEWS (Monsanto attorney): Okay.
THE COURT: And they are definitely not allowed tospray me with the sprayer.

In another move applauded by Hardeman’s legal team, Chhabria said Monday that testimony about the “Parry report” can be presented to jurors. Monsanto objected but the judge agreed with plaintiff’s counsel that “the door has been opened to the Parry report” by Monsanto’s efforts to contest evidence of genotoxicity with glyphosate herbicides. Dr. James Parry was a consultant hired by Monsanto in the 1990s to weigh in on genotoxicity concerns being raised at the time by outside scientists. Parry’s report recommended that Monsanto do additional studies to “clarify the potential genotoxic activity” of glyphosate.

See this snippet from Monday’s discussion of this topic:

THE COURT: Okay. Well, Monsanto has a report from a doctor
that it hired that — that raised concerns about the
genotoxicity of glyphosate.So it seems to me that you are — you have already saidsomething to the jury — even before we get to your second
point, you have already said something to the jury that iscontradicted to a degree by an internal Monsanto document. Andso why shouldn’t they be able to cast doubt on Monsanto’sassertion to the jury that genotox doesn’t matter byestablishing that Monsanto hired a doctor to — or hired an
expert to look at the issue of genotoxicity in the late ’90sand the expert raised concerns about genotoxicity? … I mean, Monsanto itself investigated genotox –hired somebody to investigate genotox, and that personconcluded that genotox — that it’s possibly genotoxic.

After Hardeman’s testimony, next up with be expert witness Dennis Weisenburger, professor of the Pathology Department of the City of Hope Medical Center in Omaha, Nebraska.

March 4, 2019: Cancer Victim to Take the Stand (Not.)

(Transcript from today’s proceedings)

Plaintiff Edwin Hardeman was scheduled to take the stand today along with expert witness Dennis Weisenburger, professor of the Pathology Department of the City of Hope Medical Center in Omaha, Nebraska.

But one juror apparently is too ill to endure the long trial day so testimony is being postponed.

Weisenburger, who specializes in the study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), was a key witness for the general pool of plaintiffs a year ago when he testified before Judge Vince Chhabria as the judge weighed then whether or not to let the mass of Roundup cancer claims move forward. Weisenburger has published over 50 papers in peer-reviewed journals about the causes of NHL.

Before news of the trial delay, plaintiffs had expected to rest their case on Tuesday, with Monsanto’s witnesses taking the stand by Wednesday. The whole first phase of the trial was expected to have been concluded by Friday or Monday, lawyers said.

The case will only move into a second phase if the jurors first agree that Hardeman’s exposure to Roundup was the cause of his non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Hardeman used Roundup from to treat weeds and overgrowth on a 56-acre property he and his wife owned in Sonoma County. He reported using Roundup and/or related Monsanto brands from 1986 to 2012. Hardeman was diagnosed with B-cell NHL in February of 2015.

Without the jury present the judge focused on discussion of several pieces of evidence Hardeman’s attorneys want to introduce in the first phase, arguing that Monsanto “opened the door” to evidence that otherwise was not allowed. See the plaintiff’s discussion of introducing evidence related to a controversial mouse study from the 1980s, and evidence pertaining to genotoxicity concerns raised by a Monsanto consultant, and in contrast,Monsanto’s position on the mouse study and the genotoxicity issue.

People around the world are following the trial proceedings, and the judge’s decision last week to sanction Hardeman’s lead attorney Aimee Wagstaff reportedly triggered a flood of emails from lawyers and other individuals offering support and expressing outrage at the judge’s action.

March 1, 2019:Something to Chew On

(Transcript from today’s proceedings)

Here is an interesting tidbit to chew on over the weekend. In light of Judge Vince Chhabria’s unusual handling of the first Roundup cancer lawsuit to come to trial in federal court, (see previous entries for bifurcation and other background) and the vitriol with which he has been addressing plaintiff Edwin Hardeman’s legal counsel, many observers have asked – what gives? The bifurcation, his decision to sanction plaintiff’s lead counsel, his threat to dismiss the case entirely, and his repeated comments about how “shaky” the plaintiffs’ evidence is, obviously appear to favor Monsanto’s defense, at least in the early stages of the trial.Could there be some connection between Chhabria and Monsanto?

Chhabria has a pretty stellar background. Born and raised in California, he obtained his law degree in 1998 from theUniversity of California, Berkeley School of Law, graduatingwith honors. He served as law clerkfor two federal judges and for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and worked as an associate for two law firms before joining the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office where he worked from 2005 to 2013. He was nominated by President Obama for the seat he holds now in the summer of 2013.

But interestingly, one of those law firms where Chhabria worked has raised eyebrows.Covington & Burling, LLP, is a well-known defender of a variety of corporate interests, including Monsanto Co. Covington was reportedly instrumental in helping Monsanto defend itself against dairy industry concerns over the company’s synthetic bovine growth hormone supplement, known as rBGH (for recombinant bovine growth hormone) or the brand name Posilac.

Chhabria worked at the firm between 2002-2004, a time period when Monsanto’s legal battle over Posilac was in high gear.The firm was reportedly involved in the issuein part by “sending letters to virtually all U.S. dairy processors, warning that they faced potential legal consequences if they labeled their consumer products as “rbGH-Free.”

Covington is perhaps best known for its work for the tobacco industry. A judge in Minnesota in 1997 ruled that the firm was willfully disregarding court orders to turn over certain documents pertaining to claims that the tobacco industry engaged in a 40-year conspiracy to mislead the public about the health impacts of smoking and hide damaging scientific research from public view.

Shortly before Obama selected Chhabria for his federal judgeship, an array of former Covington & Burling attorneys took spots in the administration, including Attorney General Eric Holder and deputy chief of staff Daniel Suleiman. It was reported that employees of the law firm contributed more than $340,000 to Obama’s campaign.

Chhabria’s tenure at Covington was short, to be sure. There is no apparent evidence Chhabria ever represented Monsanto’s interests directly. But he is also no stranger to the world of corporate power and influence.How those dots connect in this case is so far unclear.

February 28, 2019: Trial Takes a Day Off

Thursdays are ‘dark’ days for the Roundup cancer trial, meaning lawyers, jurors and witnesses have a day to catch their breath and regroup. And after the fast and furious first three days of the trial, they probably can use the break.

After losing another juror on Wednesday morning, the trial proceeded with the testimony of plaintiff’s expert witness and former U.S. government scientist Christopher Portier. The testimony was provided via a video recorded in Australia last week.

During an afternoon break in Portier’s testimony, Judge Chhabria took a few moments to explain himself for certain comments he made to plaintiff’s lead counsel Aimee Wagstaff on Tuesday before sanctioning her for what he said was misconduct in her opening statement to the jury. (see prior blog entries for details.)

The following is a brief excerpt:

THE COURT: Before we bring in the jury, I want to
make a quick statement to Ms. Wagstaff.
I was reflecting on the OSC hearing last night, and I
wanted to clarify one thing. I gave a list of reasons why I
thought your conduct was intentional, and one of those reasons
was that you seemed to have prepared yourself in advance for —
that you would get a hard time for violating the pretrial
rulings. In explaining that, I used the word “steely,” and I
want to make clear what I meant by that.
I was using steely as an adjective for steeling yourself,
which is to make yourself ready for something difficult and
unpleasant. My point was that I perceived no surprise on your
part; and since lawyers typically seem surprised when they are
accused of violating pretrial rulings, that was relevant to me
on the issue of intent. But “steely” has another meaning as
well, which is far more negative. And I want to assure you
that that’s not the meaning that I was using nor was I
suggesting anything about your general character traits.
So I know you continue to disagree with my ruling and my
findings about intent, but I wanted to make that point very
clear.
MS. WAGSTAFF: Thank you, Your Honor.

February 27, 2019: Judicial Threats and Judge Jokes

(UPDATE – Another juror has just been dismissed. One of the seven women jurors has been dismissed in morning proceedings. That leaves one man and six women. A total of six jurors are required and all must be unanimous in their verdict.)

As day three opens in the first federal trial over claims that Monsanto’s Roundup products can cause cancer, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria has made it clear that he has no fondness for plaintiff Edwin Hardeman’s legal team.

Chhabria on Tuesday issued a ruling sanctioning Hardeman’s lead counsel Aimee Wagstaff for what the judge deemed as “several acts of misconduct,” fining her $500 and ordering her to provide a list of all others on her team who participated in drafting her opening statement so that those lawyers may also be sanctioned.

At issue – various remarks made by Wagstaff that Judge Chhabria thought exceeded the tight restrictions he has placed on what evidence the jury can hear. Chhabria wants jurors to hear only about scientific evidence without context about Monsanto’s conduct seeking to influence the scientific record and knowledge of certain scientific findings. Additionally, even though there were no restrictions in place pertaining to the introduction of plaintiff Hardeman to the jury, the judge took issue with Wagstaff’s manner of introduction and description of how he came to learn he had non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

In Monday’s proceedings the judge made his anger at Wagstaff clear, interrupting her multiple times as she addressed the jury and ordering her to alter her presentation. He also instructed the jury more than once not to consider what Wagstaff said as evidence.

In court on Tuesday he chastised Wagstaff and said that he knew her actions were intentionally aimed at flouting his directives because she did not wither under his “coming down hard on her” in court Monday during her opening statement.

Below is a portion of those proceedings from Tuesday.(References to Moore mean Jennifer Moore, who is co-counsel on the Hardeman case.)

THE COURT: All arrows point to this being bad faith, including, by the way, Ms. Wagstaff’s reactions to the objections. She was clearly ready for it. She clearly braced herself for the fact that I was going to come down hard on her. And she was — to her credit perhaps, she was very steely in her response to my coming down hard on her because she knew it was coming and she braced herself for that.

MS. MOORE: Well, I — Your Honor, I don’t think that is not fair; and that is based on assumptions on the Court’s part.

THE COURT: That is based on my observations of body language and facial expressions.

MS. WAGSTAFF: Well, actually, Your Honor, I would just like to talk about that for just one moment. The fact that I can handle you coming down in front of a jury should not be used against me. I have been coming in front of you now for, what, three years. So I’m used to this communication back and forth. And the fact that I was prepared for anything that you had to say to me — and that you interrupted my opening statement a few times in a row — should not be used against me. The fact that I have composure when you are attacking me, it should not be used against me.

THE COURT: I was not attacking you. I was enforcing the rules, the pretrial rules.

MS. WAGSTAFF: You just said the fact that I was able to compose myself is evidence of intent, and that is just not fair.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys in the case believe that the judge’s directive to separate the trial into two phases and sharply limit the evidence they can present to the jury is extremely favorable to Monsanto and prejudicial to their ability to meet the burden of proof in the case. They also say that the judge’s guidance on what evidence can come in and what cannot is confusing. And they point out that Monsanto’s attorney also in opening statements introduced evidence that was banned by the judge, though he was not sanctioned.

Below is a bit more from Tuesday’s proceedings:

THE COURT: And that is — that is relevant to intent. That is relevant to bad faith. The fact that the Plaintiffs have made so clear that they are so desperate to get this information into Phase One is evidence that it was not just a mistake that they happen to put this information in their opening statements.

MS. MOORE: Your Honor, I did not say we were desperate. What I was trying to explain is that the way the trial is set up is unusual. And I think, Your Honor, that you recognize that after the bifurcation order came out; that this is a unique situation where you limit a trial when we are talking about product case like this to only science in the first phase, and it has created confusion on both sides of the aisle.

That’s for sure.

Joke of the day – told to me by a lawyer who wishes to remain unnamed:

Q: “Who is Monsanto’s best lawyer?”

A: “Judge Chhabria.”

February 25, 2019: Reporting From Court(tweets transcribed here in reverse chronology)

Documents from Day 1 in the Hardeman trial are posted here.

See Transcript of proceedings.

See Plaintiff’s Opening Slide Deck and Monsanto’s Opening Slide Deck

3:30 p.m. –Jury is dismissed by judge but lawyers in Roundup cancer trial still discussing how evidence can or can’t be used. He’s still furious over plaintiff’s lawyer Aimee Wagstaff daring to talk about 1983 @EPA dox showing cancer concerns with glyphosate.

Judge is ripping into Aimee Wagstaff again saying he wants to sanction her $1,000 and maybe the whole plaintiff’s legal team as well. Calling her actions “incredibly dumb.”

2:30p.m. post lunch updates:

  • As Monsanto Roundup cancer trial resumes, plaintiff’s expert witness Beate Ritz talks to jurors about risk ratios, confidence intervals & statistical significance of cancer science. Touts the value of meta-analyses. @Bayer
  • Dr. Ritz is testifying about the various studies showing increased risk for cancer from glyphosate exposure.
  • Plaintiff Edwin Hardeman & his wife watch quietly, but during a break express frustration over how much Judge Chhabria has limited evidence the jury is hearing.
  • Sure-fire way to draw an objection from @Bayer Monsanto attorneys at Roundup cancer trial: mention @IARCWHO scientific classification of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.
  • Day one of @Bayer Monsanto Roundup cancer trial concludes after lengthy testimony from scientist Beate Ritz walking jurors through research that shows risks of NHL from exposure to glyphosate herbicides. Judge thanks jurors for being attentive; tells them to stay away from media.

  • Only one day in and Roundup cancer trial is losing a juror. One of the two men on jury claims work hardship; he can’t afford to lose paycheck. That leaves 7 women and 1 man to decide case. Verdict must be unanimous for plaintiff to win.

11:38 a.m.Evidence of the judge’s ire in opening round of federal Roundup cancer trial: pre trial order for plaintiff’s attorney to show cause why she should not be sanctioned by 8 p.m. tonight.

11:10 a.m. Monsanto/Bayer wraps up its opening and now preparing for first witness, plaintiff scientist Beate Ritz. More updates from opening statement:

  • Plaintiff’s attorney calls for sidebar as those statements were barred by pre-trial orders but judge overrules her.
  • Now Monsanto attorney shows chart saying while glyphosate use has increased over decades, rates of NHL have not. He then says that despite @IARCWHO classification as glyphosate as probable carcinogen @EPA & foreign regulators disagree.
  • Defense attorney for Monsanto @Bayer on a roll; telling jurors all about the Agricultural Health Study, which showed no ties between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Lawyer makes point Monsanto had nothing to do with the study.
10:45 a.m.Now it’s @Bayer Monsanto’s turn for opening statements – attorney Brian Stekloff tells jury “Roundup did not cause Mr. Hardeman’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”
 
  • Judge just orders another Monsanto @Bayer slide removed, interrupting defense attorney opening statement. Playing hardball with both sides.
  • Plaintiff’s attorney objects to one of Monsanto attorneys slides; judge agrees and slide is removed. Defense attorney making case that Hardeman’s history of Hepatitis C likely to blame for his NHL.
  • He tells jurors NHL is common type of cancer and most NHL victims are not Roundup users; there is no test a doctor can run to tell a patient his disease was or was not caused by Roundup.

10:15 updates on opening remarks of plaintiff’s attorney Aimee Wagstaff:

  • Judge now threatening to sanction plaintiff’s attorney and pondering if he should refuse to allow jury to see the plaintiff’s slides. @Bayer Monsanto lawyer says yes. Aimee asks to address his concern; judge cuts her off.
  • Judge now dismisses jury for break and then RIPS into plaintiff’s attorney – says she has “crossed the line” and is “totally inappropriate” in her opening statements. Says this is her “final warning.” Never a dull moment at the @BayerMonsanto Roundup cancer trial.
  • Judge also tells her to “move on” when she tries to explain that @EPAonly assesses glyphosate and not whole product.
  • She is allowed brief mention of @IARCWHOclassification of glyphosate as probable human carcinogen but judge cuts her off before she can say much.
  • In opening statement for @BayerMonsanto Roundup cancer trial plaintiff’s attorney points to new meta-analysis showing compelling ties to cancer (see Guardian story).
  • In opening statement for Roundup cancer trial plaintiff’s attorney reads from 1980s-era @EPAmemo “glyphosate is suspect” & goes through the story of how Monsanto engineered a reversal of EPA concerns. Jurors look a little confused by all this science stuff.

9:35 a.m. Now plaintiff attorney telling the story of the 1983 mouse study that caused @EPAscientists to find glyphosate cancer causing… before Monsanto convinced them not to. oops. Judge cuts her off again. Sidebar. @BayerMonsanto has to love this. For more on the 1983 mouse study, see 2017 article, “Of Mice, Monsanto and a Mysterious Tumor.

9:30 a.m. The main theme this morning is the judge is giving no leeway to the plaintiff’s attorney, via @careygillam:

8:49 a.m. Judge Chhabria is showing an early tight rein on this Roundup cancer trial. He stopped plaintiff’s attorney Aimee Wagstaff within minutes of her opening for a sidebar. Wagstaff opened by introducing the wife of the plaintiff, and began telling the story of their life and Hardeman finding the lump in his neck. The judge interrupted to tell Wagstaff to stick to comments dealing with causation only.

8:10 a.m. “Court is now in session”. Courtroom is packed for opening statements in Roundup cancer trial. Right off the bat, Monsanto Bayer, and plaintiff’s attorneys are already in conflict over evidence to be introduced.

8:00 a.m. And we’re off. Six months after a California jury decided Monsanto’s weed killers caused a groundskeeper’s cancer,another California jury is getting ready to hear similar arguments against Monsanto.

This time the case is being heard in federal court, not state court. Importantly, the judge has agreed with a request from Monsanto to try the case in two phases with evidence of potential negligent and deceptive conduct by Monsanto withheld during the first phase to allow the jury to focus solely on evidence pertaining to the question of whether or not the company’s products were to blame for the plaintiff’s cancer.

Plainitiff Edwin Hardeman suffers from B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which was diagnosed in February 2015, one month before the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate, a key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup and other herbicide brands, as a “probable human carcinogen.

Hardeman used Roundup products regularly to treat weeds and overgrowth on a 56-acre tract he owned in Sonoma County. Documents filed in federal court pertaining to the Hardeman trial can be found here.

Seven women and two men were selected as jurors to hear the Hardeman case. The judge has said the case should run through the end of March. Yesterday Judge Chhabria denied Monsanto a motion for summary judgement.

February 20, 2019: Jury Selected

Lawyers wasted no time Wednesday in selecting the jury for next week’s trial start. The jury is made up of 7 women and two men. For plaintiff Edwin Hardeman to win his case, the jury verdict must be unanimous.

The case is being tried in two phases. If jurors do not find in favor of the plaintiff in the first phase there will be no second phase. See below, January 10, 2019 post, for more explanation on the difference in the two phases.

Ahead of the trial lawyers for both sides have filed a joint list of exhibits they plan to introduce, or “may” introduce, as evidence during the proceedings. The list runs 463 pages and includes records ranging from decades-old EPA memos and email exchanges with Monsanto to more recent scientific studies.

February 19, 2019: Last-Minute Moves

With less than a week to go before opening statements in the Feb. 25 federal civil trial over accusations that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based weed killers cause cancer, lawyers for both sides were readying for jury selection that starts Wednesday.

In pre-trial proceedings lawyers for plaintiff Edwin Hardeman and the legal team representing Monsanto, now a unit of Bayer AG, have already been arguing over jury selection based solely on written responses provided by prospective jurors, and many have already been stricken by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria for cause.

On Wednesday, attorneys will question the prospective jurors in person. Monsanto’s attorneys are particularly concerned about potential jurors who know about the case that Monsanto lost last summer. In that trial, plaintiff Dewayne “Lee” Johnson won a unanimous jury verdict on claims similar to Hardeman’s – that Monsanto’s herbicides caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto failed to warn of the risks. Johnson was awarded $289 million by jurors, but the judge in the case reduced the verdict to $78 million.

The stakes in this case are high. The first loss hit Bayer hard; its share price is down nearly 30 percent since the verdict and investors remain skittish. Another loss in court could provide another blow to the company’s market capitalization, particularly because there are roughly 9,000 other plaintiffs waiting for their day in court.

In preparation for the trial opening on Monday morning, Judge Chhabria saidin a Feb. 15 hearing that he will separate out all jury candidates on a Monsanto list who say they have heard about the Johnson case for specific questioning about their knowledge of that case.

Among those already stricken from the jury pool based on their written questionnaires were several people who indicated they had negative perceptions about Monsanto. While the judge agreed with Monsanto’s request to remove those people from the jury pool, he refused a request from plaintiff’s attorneys to strike a prospective juror who said the opposite – the juror wrote that he feels that “they (Monsanto) typically are very honest and helpful to society,” and said he believed Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide was safe.

Judge Chhabria said “I didn’t think anyone in the Bay Area felt that way….”

In other pre-trial action, lawyers from both sides were in Australia preparing for testimony from plaintiff’s expert witness Christopher Portier. Portier is providing video-recorded testimony in advance with direct and cross-examination. He was scheduled to be in court in person for the trial but suffered a heart attack in January and has been advised against the long air travel that would be required to appear in person.

Portier is one of the plaintiff’s star witnesses. He is former director of the National Center for Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and a former scientist with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

In other pre-trial action, Judge Chhabria ruled on Monday on motions from both parties dealing with what evidence would be allowed in and what would be excluded. Chhabria has ruled that there will be a first phase of the trial in which evidence will be limited to causation. If the jury does find that Monsanto’s products caused Hardeman’s cancer there will be a second phase in which evidence may be introduced pertaining to the allegations by plaintiff’s attorneys that Monsanto has engaged in a cover-up of the risks of its products.

Among Chhabria’s evidentiary rulings:

Evidence the plaintiff’s attorneys say shows Monsanto engaged in ghostwriting scientific literature is excluded for the first phase of the trial.

  • Evidence or Monsanto’s marketing materials is excluded for both phases.
  • Comparisons between Monsanto and the tobacco industry are excluded.
  • An email from Monsanto discussing work with the American Council on Science and Health is excluded from the first phase.
  • Arguments that glyphosate is needed to “feed the world” are excluded for both phases.
  • Certain EPA documents are excluded.
  • An analysis by the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifying glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen is “restricted.”

One piece of evidence plaintiff’s attorneys plan to introduce is a new meta-analysis A broad new scientific analysis of the cancer-causing potential of glyphosate herbicides. The study found that people with high exposures to the herbicides have a 41% increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

The study authors, top scientists who the Environmental Protection Agency has used as advisers, said the evidence“supports a compelling link” between exposures to glyphosate-based herbicides and increased risk for NHL.

February 8, 2019: Evidence and Issues – With the high-stakes, first federal Roundup cancer trial fast approaching on Feb. 25, lawyers for Monsanto – and its owner Bayer AG – have laid out a long list of evidence and issuesthey do not want introduced at trial.

Among the things the company does not want presented at trial are the following: Mentions of other litigation against Monsanto; evidence regarding the company’s public relations activities; comparisons to the tobacco industry; information about the company’s association with “controversial products” such as Agent Orange and PCBs; information about Monsanto’s “wealth”; and information about “Bayer’s role in World War II.”

None of the evidence Monsanto wants excluded at trial has any bearing on whether or not its herbicides caused the plaintiff’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the company’s attorneys told the judge.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys have their own list of things they’d rather not be presented to the jury. Among them: Information about attorney advertising for plaintiffs in the Roundup litigation; the “unrelated medical history” of plaintiff Edwin Hardeman; and evidence about foreign regulatory decisions.

Meanwhile, on Feb. 6 both parties filed a “joint trial exhibit list” detailing each and every piece of evidence they plan to present – or may present – to the jury. The list runs 314 pages and includes a host of internal Monsanto documents as well as regulatory documents, scientific studies, and reports by various expert witnesses.

Bayer added another member to the Monsanto Roundup defense team. On Feb. 8, Shook Hardy & Bacon attorney James Shepherd filed his notice of appearance in the Roundup Products Liability Litigation in federal court. Shepherd has defended Bayer against various lawsuits, including claims alleging injuries tied to Bayer’s cholesterol-lowering medication, and allegations of harm from an intrauterine device (IUD).

As well, both sides recently filed a joint list of exhibits each plan to introduce at trial, including depositions, photographs, emails, regulatory documents, scientific studies and more. The list runs 320 pages.

Judge Vince Chhabria indicated in a Feb. 4 hearing that if the jury finds for the plaintiff in the first phase of the bifurcated trial, meaning if the jury determines that Monsanto’s herbicides were a cause of Edwin Hardeman’s cancer, the second phase of the trial will begin the following day. That second phase will focus on Monsanto’s conduct and any potential punitive damages.

All the related documents can be found on our Monsanto Papers page.

January 29, 2019 – We are less than a month away from the start of the first federal trialin the Roundup products liability litigation, and both sides are loading up the court files with scores of pleadings and exhibits. Included in recent filings are several noteworthy internal Monsanto documents. A few are highlighted below. A more complete posting of the court documents can be found on the main USRTK Monsanto Papers page.

  • Get up and shout for glyphosate:Internal Monsanto emails written in 1999 detail the company’s “scientific outreach” work and efforts to develop a global network of “outside scientific experts who are influential at driving science, regulators, public opinion, etc.” The plan called for having people “directly or indirectly/behind the scenes” working on Monsanto’s behalf. The company wanted “people to get up and shout Glyphosate is Non-toxic,” according to the email thread. For the plan to work they “may have to divorce Monsanto from direct association with the expert or we will waste the $1,000/day these guys are charging.”
  • This intriguing email thread from January 2015 discusses a retired Monsanto plant worker who reported to the company that he had been diagnosed with Hairy cell leukemia, a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. He wrote that he had “irregular blood counts” before he retired, and he wondered if his diagnosis was “related to working around all of the chemicals” at the company’s plant. The company’s “adverse effects team” reviewed his case and a Monsanto “health nurse” told him they had not found an association between his “medical condition” and the chemicals at the plant where he worked. They also indicate in the email thread that there is no need to notify EPA. One email dated Nov. 21, 2014 written broadly to “Monsanto Employees” from the adverse effects team lets employees know that although the EPA requires the reporting of information about adverse effects of pesticide products such as injury or health problems, employees should not notify EPA themselves if they become aware of any such problems. Employees should “immediately forward” information to the company’s adverse effects unit instead.
  • Did Monsanto Collaborate on AHS Study? Monsanto and new owner Bayer repeatedly have sought to counter scores of studies showing ties between glyphosate herbicides and cancer by touting one study – an update to the U.S. government-backed Agricultural Health Study (AHS) that found no ties between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The AHS is a foundational part of the company’s defense in the Roundup products liability litigation. But there have been many questions about the timing of the AHS update, which raced through peer review much faster than is normal for papers in peer-reviewed journals. The update was released to the public on the morning of Nov. 9, 2017 – the same day as a critical court hearing in the Roundup cancer litigation. It was cited by Monsanto at that hearing as a “significant development” and a reason to delay proceedings. A May 11, 2015 internal Monsanto “Proposal for Post-IARC Meeting Scientific Projects” discusses the potential for an “AHS Collaboration.” Monsanto called the proposal “most appealing” as it would appear that Monsanto was “somewhat distanced” from the study.
  • Despite much talk about “800 studies” showing the safety of glyphosate Monsanto acknowledged in a court filingthat it “has not identified any 12 month or longer chronic toxicity studies that it has conducted on glyphosate containing formulations that were available for sale in the United States of as June 29, 2017.”

Separate news of note –Plaintiffs’ expert scientific witness Dr. Christopher Portier will not be coming to San Francisco to testify at the trial as planned. Portier suffered a heart attack while traveling in Australia earlier in January and is still recovering.

And in a move welcomed by plaintiffs’ attorneys, U.S. Judge Vincent Chhabria on Monday said that he may allow some evidence about Monsanto’s alleged ghostwriting of scientific studies into the first phase of the upcoming trial despite Monsanto’s efforts to keep the evidence out until and unless a second phase of the trial occurs. Evidence of Monsanto’s efforts to influence regulators and scientists may also be allowed in the first phase, Chhabria said. Chhabria has ordered that the trial be bifurcated, meaning that the first phase will deal only with the allegation of causation. If the jury does find that Monsanto’s herbicides caused plaintiff Edwin Hardeman’s cancer, then a second phase would be held to explore Monsanto’s conduct.

January 18, 2019 —Time flies when a big case approaches.U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria has set an evidentiary hearing for Jan. 28 at 9 a.m. local time in federal court in San Francisco to be followed by a “Daubert” hearing that day at 2 p.m. The hearings are to consider evidence and experts that will be key to the first-ever federal trial taking up claims that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides can cause cancer and Monsanto has covered up the risks. Video recording of the proceedings is being allowed.

Chhabria has taken the unusual step of agreeing with a request from the attorneys representing Monsanto and its owner Bayer AG to bifurcate the trial. The first phase, per Monsanto’s request, will deal only with evidence relevant causation – if its products caused the cancer suffered by plaintiff Edwin Hardeman. Evidence of Monsanto efforts to manipulate regulators and the scientific literature and “ghost write” various articles would only be presented in a second phase of the trial if jurors in the first phase find the herbicides were a substantial factor in causing Hardeman’s cancer.

The parties are in disagreement over exactly what evidence should be allowed in the causation phase.

Monsanto specifically has asked the judge to exclude from evidence:

  • A 2001 email detailing internal discussions regarding an independent epidemiology study published that year.
  • A 2015 internal email regarding the company’s relationship with and funding of the American Council on Science and Health, a group that purports to be independent of industry as its promotes safety messaging about glyphosate products.
  • A 2015 email chain including internal commentary by Monsanto scientist Bill Heydens about the role surfactants play in glyphosate formulated products.

For point 1, attorneys for Hardeman have said they do not intend to try to introduce the evidence “unless the door is opened by Monsanto.”

For point 2, they also said they do not intend to introduce the ACSH correspondence “unless Monsanto in any way relies on the ACSH’s junk science positions regarding the carcinogenicity” of glyphosate-based formulations “or attacks on IARC’s classification of glyphosate.”

As for the 2015 Heydens email chain, attorney’s for Hardeman argue the correspondence is illuminating to the causation question. Heydens’ email refers to the results of a 2010 study referred to as George et al., which found a statistically significant increase of tumors on the skin of rodents following exposure to a formulated Roundup product. The study is one relied upon by plaintiffs’ general causation experts.

The letter brief laying out the positions by opposing parties is here.

In a separate issue – the ongoing government shut-down could impact the Feb. 25 trial date for the Hardeman case. Judge Chhabria has said that he does not intend to ask jurors to sit in a trial without being paid.

January 16, 2019 – (UPDATED Feb. 9, 2019) New documents filed in federal court are threatening to expose Reuters news reporter Kate Kelland for acting as Monsanto’s puppet in driving a false narrative about cancer scientist Aaron Blair and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.

In 2017, Kelland authored a controversial story attributed to “court documents,” that actually appears to have been fed to her by a Monsanto executive who helpfully provided several key points the company wanted made. The documents Kelland cited were not filed in court, and not publicly available at the time she wrote her story but writing that her story was based on court documents allowed her to avoid disclosing Monsanto’s role in driving the story.

When the story came out, it portrayed cancer scientist Aaron Blair as hiding “important information” that found no links between glyphosate and cancer from IARC. Kelland wrote that Blair “said the data would have altered IARC’s analysis” even though a review of the full deposition shows that Blair did not say that.

Kelland provided no link to the documents she cited, making it impossible for readers to see for themselves how far she veered from accuracy.

The story was picked up by media outlets around the world, and promoted by Monsanto and chemical industry allies. Google advertisements were even purchased promoting the story.

Now, new information revealed in court filings indicates just how heavy Monsanto’s hand was in pushing the narrative. In a January 15 court filing, Plaintiff’s attorneys cited internal Monsanto correspondence dated April 27, 2017 they say show that Monsanto executive Sam Murphey sent the desired narrative to Kelland with a slide deck of talking points and portions of the Blair deposition that was not filed in court. The attorneys said the correspondence shows the Monsanto executive asking her to publish an article accusing Dr. Blair of deceiving IARC.

Monsanto and Bayer lawyers have tried to keep the correspondence with Kelland sealed from public view, and some of the emails between the Reuters reporter and Monsanto still have not been released.

Plaintiff’s attorneys also write in their letter brief that Monsanto’s internal documents show Kelland was seen as a a key media contact in their efforts to discredit IARC.

There is nothing inherently wrong in receiving story suggestions that benefit companies from the companies themselves. It happens all the time. But reporters must be diligent in presenting facts, not corporate propaganda.

This story was used by Monsanto to attack IARC on multiple fronts, including an effort by Monsanto to get Congress to strip funding from IARC.

At the very least, Kelland should have been honest with readers and acknowledged that Monsanto was her source. Reuters owes the world – and IARC – an apology.For more background on this topic, see this article.

January 10, 2019 –For those wanting more details on the reasoning and ramifications of a federal court judge’s decision to limit large volumes of evidence related to Monsanto’s internal communications and conduct from the first federal trial, this transcriptof the Jan. 4 hearing on the matter is informative.

Here is an exchange between plaintiff’s attorney Brent Wisner and Judge Vince Chhabria that illustrates the frustration and fear plaintiff’s attorneys have over the limitation of their evidence to direct causation, with much of the evidence dealing with Monsanto’s conduct and internal communications restricted. The judge has said that evidence would only come in at a second phase of the trial if jurors in a first phase find that Monsanto’s Roundup products directly contributed substantially to the plaintiff’s cancer.

  1. WISNER: Here is a great example: Monsanto’s chief toxicologist,

Donna Farmer, she writes in an e-mail: We can’t say Roundup

doesn’t cause cancer. We have not done the necessary testing

on the formulated product.

THE COURT: That would not come in — my gut reaction

is that that would not come in in the first phase.

  1. WISNER: So that is literally Monsanto’s chief

toxicologist — a person who has more knowledge about Roundup

than anyone else in the world — saying —

THE COURT: The question is whether it causes cancer,

not whether — not Farmer’s opinion on what Monsanto can say or

not say. It is about what the science actually shows.

  1. WISNER: Sure. She is literally talking about the

science that they didn’t do.

THE COURT: My gut is that that is actually really a

fairly easy question, and the answer to that fairly easy

question is that that doesn’t come in in the first phase.”

Stay tuned….

January 9, 2019 – The first federal trial in the Roundup Products Liability Litigation may still be more than a month away, but the calendar is busy for attorneys on both sides. See below the schedule set by the judge in an order filed yesterday:

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 63: UPCOMING DEADLINES FOR BELLWETHER TRIAL.

  • Evidentiary Hearing set for 1/28/2019 09:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 04, 17th Floor before Judge Vince Chhabria.
  • Dr. Shustov’s Daubert Hearing set for 1/28/2019 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 04, 17th Floor before Judge Vince Chhabria.
  • Jury Selection to complete the supplemental questionnaire in the jury office (not on the record or in court) set for 2/13/2019 08:30 AM in San Francisco.
  • Jury Selection (hardship and challenge cause hearing with counsel and Court) set for 2/15/2019 10:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 04, 17th Floor before Judge Vince Chhabria.

January 7, 2019 – The new year is off to a strong start for Monsanto as the Bayer unit heads into its second trial over allegations that its Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides cause cancer. In aJan. 3 ruling, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria rejected arguments by attorneys representing cancer victims and sided with Monsanto in deciding to block jurors from hearing a large portion of evidence that plaintiffs say shows efforts by Monsanto to manipulate and influence regulators in a first phase of the trial. In deciding to bifurcate the trial, Chhabria said that jurors will only hear such evidence if they first agree that Monsanto’s weed killer did significantly contribute to causing the plaintiff’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

“A significant portion of the plaintiffs’ case involves attacks on Monsanto for attempting to influence regulatory agencies and manipulate public opinion regarding glyphosate. These issues are relevant to punitive damages and some liability questions. But when it comes to whether glyphosate caused a plaintiff’s NHL, these issues are mostly a distraction, and a significant one at that,” the judge’s order states.

He did provide a caveat, writing, “if the plaintiffs have evidence that Monsanto manipulated the outcome of scientific studies, as opposed to agency decisions or public opinion regarding those studies, that evidence may well be admissible at the causation phase.”

Jury selection is set to begin Feb. 20 with the trial set to get underway on Feb. 25 in San Francisco. The case is Edwin Hardeman v. Monsanto.

Meanwhile, plaintiff Lee Johnson, who was the first cancer victim to take Monsanto to trial, winning a unanimous jury verdict against the company in August, has also won his request to the 1st District Court of Appeals for speedy handling of Monsanto’s appeal of that jury award. Monsanto opposed Johnson’s request for “calendar preference,” but the court granted the request on Dec. 27, giving Monsanto 60 days to file its opening brief.

December 20, 2018 – U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said on Thursday that he would not rule until January on the disputed issue of bifurcation of the first federal trial, which is set to get underway in February. Attorneys for plaintiffs and for Monsanto were ordered to file all of their experts’ reports by Friday, December 21 to help Chhabria in his decision.

December 18, 2018 –Monsanto/Bayer lawyers responded Friday to de-designation requests concerning several hundred internal Monsanto records, seeking to keep most of them sealed in opposition to requests from plaintiffs’ attorneys. Company lawyers did agree to the release of some internal documents, which could be made public this week.

In the meantime both sides are awaiting a ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria on a motion made by Monsanto attorneys to reverse bifurcate the first federal court trial in the mass Roundup cancer litigation. That trial is set to begin Feb. 25 and is considered a bellwether that will set the stage for how and if other cases proceed and/or are resolved.

Monsanto would like the federal court trials to be conducted in two phases—a first phase focused on medical causation – did the company’s herbicides cause the specific plaintiff’s cancer – and a second phase to address liability only if plaintiffs prevail in the first phase.

The issues of causation and compensatory damages are “separate and distinct from Monsanto’s alleged negligence and company conduct and would involve testimony from different witnesses,” the company argued. Bifurcation would avoid “undue delay in resolving this case…”

Plaintiffs’ attorneys object to the bifurcation saying the idea is “unheard of” in modern multi district litigation (MDL), which is what Chhabria is overseeing. More than 600 lawsuits are pending in his court alleging that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides caused plaintiffs’ cancers, and Monsanto failed to warn consumers of the dangers of its products.

“It is simply never done, and for good reason,” plaintiffs’ attorneys argued in a Dec. 13 court filing. “The purpose of a bellwether trial is to allow each side to test their theories and evidence against a real-world jury and, hopefully, learn important information about the strengths and weaknesses of the case to inform collective resolution. Imposing a one-sided procedural hurdle—one that would be a de facto outlier for the 10,000 cases proceeding around the country—does not accomplish that goal. It renders any verdict in this MDL, no matter which side prevails, unhelpful.” The next hearing in the case is set for Jan. 4.

December 14, 2018 – Plaintiff Seeks Expedited Handling of Monsanto’s Appeal as His Health Deteriorates

Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, the first plaintiff to take Monsanto to trial alleging the company’s glyphosate-based herbicides cause cancer, is scheduled for surgery today to remove a new cancerous growth on one of his arms.

Johnson’s health has been deteriorating since the trial’s conclusion in August and an interruption in treatment due to a temporary lapse in insurance coverage. He has not received any funds from the litigation due to the appeals Monsanto instigated after Johnson court victory. Monsanto is appealing the verdict of $78 million, which was reduced by the trial judge from the jury’s award of $289 million.

Johnson filed notice with the court in October that he would accept the reduced award. But because Monsanto has appealed, Johnson’s attorneys have also filed an appeal, seeking to reinstate the jury award.

The California State Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate District, case number is A155940. Johnson’s attorneys are seeking expedited handling of the appeal and say they hope to have briefings completed by April. “There is… a strong likelihood that Mr. Johnson is going to die in 2019,” the plaintiff’s motion states. Johnson, who plans to restart immunotherapy after his surgery, is not necessarily in agreement.

“I hate to think about dying,” he said in an interview published in Time Magazine. “Even when I feel like I’m dying, I just make myself move past it. I feel like you can’t give in to it, the diagnosis, the disease, because then you really are dead. I don’t mess around with the death cloud, the dark thoughts, the fears. I’m planning for a good life.”

December 13, 2018 – More Monsanto Shoes (Documents) Set to Drop

The law firm of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, which partnered with The Miller Firm in notching the historic victory for plaintiff Dewayne Lee Johnson over Monsanto in August, is seeking the de-designation of several hundred pages of internal Monsanto records that were obtained through discovery but have so far been kept sealed.

Baum Hedlund last year released hundreds of other internal Monsanto records that include emails, memos, text messages and other communications that were influential in the unanimous jury verdict finding Monsanto acted with “malice” by not warning customers of scientific concerns about its glyphosate-based herbicides. Jury sources say that those internal records were very influential in their $250 million punitive damage award against Monsanto, which the judge in the case reduced to $39 million for a total award of $78 million.

Attorneys for plaintiffs in two upcoming trials say that Monsanto records that have not been seen publicly before will be part of new evidence they plan to introduce at the trials.

Today is also the deadline for plaintiffs attorneys to respond to Monsanto’s motion to “reverse bifurcate” the Feb. 25 trial set for U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. (see Dec. 11 entry below for more details)

December 12, 2018 – New Judge Appointed in Pilliod Case

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Ioana Petrou, who has spent more than a year engaged in the Roundup cancer litigation and sat through many days of the presentation of scientific evidence by plaintiffs and defense experts in a federal court hearing in March 2017, is off the case. California Gov. Jerry Brown announced on November 21st that Petrou has been appointed associate justice, Division Three of the First District Court of Appeal.

Judge Winifred Smith has been named to replace Petrou to oversee the case of Pilliod V. Monsanto, which is scheduled to go to trial March 8 in Oakland, California. Smith was appointed by Governor Gray Davis in November 2000, and prior to her appointment, served as deputy assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice in San Francisco.

The Pilliod case will be the third to go to trial in the sweeping Roundup mass tort litigation. Alva Pilliod and his wife Alberta Pilliod, both in their 70s and married for 48 years, allege that their cancers – forms of non-Hodgkin lymphoma – are due to their long exposure to Roundup. Their advanced ages and cancer diagnoses warrant a speedy trial, according to court filings by their attorneys. Monsanto opposed their request for the expedited trial date but Petrou found the couple’s illnesses and ages warranted preference. Alberta has brain cancer while Alva suffers from a cancer that has invaded his pelvis and spine. Alva was diagnosed in 2011 while Alberta was diagnosed in 2015. They used Roundup from roughly the mid -1970s until only a few years ago.

The Pilliod suit echoes others in claiming that “Monsanto led a prolonged campaign of misinformation to convince government agencies, farmers and the general public that Roundup was safe.”

December 11, 2018 – Attorneys Scramble Ahead of Next Trial

With the next trial in the mass Roundup cancer litigation set for Feb. 25 in San Francisco, attorneys for Monsanto and plaintiffs are scrambling to take more than two dozen depositions in the waning weeks of December and into January even as they debate how the trial should be organized.

Monsanto attorneys on Dec. 10 filed a motion to “reverse bifurcate” the next trial, Edwin Hardeman V. Monsanto (3:16-cv-00525). Monsanto wants the jury only to hear evidence focused on specific medical causation first – did its herbicide cause the plaintiff’s cancer – with a second phase that would address Monsanto’s liability and damages only necessary if the jury found in plaintiff’s favor in the first phase. See Monsanto’s argument here. Judge Chhabria granted a request from plaintiff’s attorneys to be allowed until Thursday to file their response.

Edwin Hardeman and his wife spent many years living on a 56-acre, former exotic animal refuge in Sonoma County, California where Hardeman routinely used Roundup products to treat overgrown grasses and weeds since the 1980s. He was diagnosed with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma in February 2015, just a month before the International Agency for Research on Cancer declared glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen.

Hardeman’s case was selected as the first to be tried in federal court in San Francisco (Northern District of California) in front of Judge Vince Chhabria. Attorney Aimee Wagstaff of Denver, Colorado, is lead plaintiff’s counsel on the case. Attorney Brent Wisner of the Baum Hedlund law firm in Los Angeles, and the lawyer credited with leading the victory in Dewayne Lee Johnson’s historic August victory over Monsanto, had been expected to help try the case but now has another case scheduled to begin in March. That case is Pilliod, et al V. Monsanto in Alameda County Superior Court. See related documents on the Monsanto Papers main page.

Monsanto’s new owner Bayer AG is not content to rely on Monsanto’s trial team that lost the Johnson case and is bringing in its own legal defense team. The Bayer team, which helped the German company win litigation over the Xarelto blood thinner, now includes Pamela Yates and Andrew Solow of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer and Brian Stekloff of Wilkinson Walsh Eskovitz.

Hearings on specific causation issues are set in the Hardeman case for Feb. 4, 6, 11, and 13 with jury selection scheduled for Feb. 20. Opening arguments would then begin Feb. 25, according to the current schedule.

December 6, 2018 – Upcoming Monsanto Trial Dates

2/25/2019 – Federal Court – Hardeman

3/18/2019 – CA JCCP – Pilliod (2 plaintiffs)

4/1/2019 – St. Louis City Court – Hall

4/22/2019 – St. Louis County Court – Gordon

5/25/2019 – Federal Court – Stevick or Gebeyehou

9/9/2019 – St. Louis County Court – 4 plaintiffs

1/21/2020 – St. Louis City Court – 10 plaintiffs

3/23/2020 – St. Louis City Court

November 21, 2018 – Lee Johnson interview

Dewayne “Lee” Johnson was the first person to take Monsanto to court alleging that exposure to Roundup herbicide caused him to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that the company covered up the risks. In August 2018, a jury in San Francisco unanimously found that Monsanto had failed to warn about the carcinogenic dangers of Roundup herbicide and related products, and they awarded Johnson $289 million. A judge later reduced that amount to $78 million. Carey Gillam spoke with Johnson about the aftermath of his case in this interview for TIME magazine:I Won a Historic Lawsuit But May Not Get to Keep the Money

 

Neonicotinoids: a growing concern

Print Email Share Tweet

On January 10, The Guardian published this story about a small rural Nebraska community that has been struggling for at least two years with contamination tied to neonicotinoid-coated corn seed. The source is an area ethanol plant that has been marketing itself as a free “recycling” location for seed companies such as Bayer, Syngenta and others who needed a place to get rid of excess supplies of these pesticide-treated seed stocks. The result, the townspeople say, is a landscape laced with stunningly high levels of neonicotinoid residues, which they say have triggered illnesses in both humans and animals. They fear their land and water are now irreparably contaminated.

State environmental officials have recorded levels of the neonicotinoids at a staggering 427,000 parts per billion (ppb) in testing of one of the large hills of waste on the site of the ethanol plant property. That compares to regulatory benchmarks saying levels must be under 70 ppb to be considered safe.

See this page for more details and documents.

University of Nebraska academic Judy Wu-Smart has documented the concerns and evidence of the apparent impacts of the contamination on the area environment, including on bees and other wildlife in a paper she has been sharing with other academics.

The tale of the toll on the community in Mead, Nebraska, is but the latest sign that state and federal regulatory oversight of neonicotinoids needs to be strengthened, according to environmental advocates and researchers from several U.S. universities.

“They are doing a ton of harm and clearly being nefarious about it,’ said Sarah Hoyle, who specializes in pesticide issues for the Xerces Society, an Oregon-based conservation organization.

The controversy over the class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids, or neonics, has been growing in recent years and has become a global conflict between the corporate behemoths that sell neonics and environmental and consumer groups who say the insecticides are responsible for extensive environmental and human health harm.

Since being introduced in the 1990s, neonicotinoids have become the world’s most widely used class of insecticides, sold in at least 120 countries to help control damaging insects and protect agricultural production. The insecticides are not only sprayed on plants but also coated on seeds. Neonicotinoids are used in producing many types of crops, including rice, cotton, corn, potatoes and soybeans. As of 2014, neonicotinoids represented more than 25 percent of the global pesticide market, according to researchers.

Within the class, clothianidin and imidacloprid are the most commonly used in the United States, according to a 2019 paper published in the journal Environmental Health.

In January 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency released a proposed interim decisions for acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam, specific insecticides within the neonicotinoid class. The EPA said it was working to reduce the amount used on crops associated with “potential ecological risks,” restricting when the pesticides could be applied to blooming crops.

A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that neonicotinoids are a factor in the widespread colony collapse disorder of bees, which are essential pollinators in food production. They are also seen as at least partly to blame for an “insect apocalypse. The insecticides have also been tied to serious defects in white-tailed deer, deepening concerns over the chemical’s potential to harm large mammals, including people.

The European Union banned the outdoor use of neonics clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam in 2018, and the United Nations says neonics are so hazardous that they should be “severely” restricted. But in the United States, neonics remain widely used.

Nebraska regulatory documents regarding AltEn neonicotinoid contamination

Print Email Share Tweet

AltEn, an ethanol plant in Mead, Nebraska, has been the source of numerous community complaints over the use of pesticide-coated seeds for use in its biofuel production and the resulting waste products, which have been shown to contain levels of harmful neonicotinoids and other pesticides well above levels generally considered safe.

The concerns in Mead are but the latest example of growing global fear about the impacts of neonicotinoids.

See this story in The Guardian.

See here some of the regulatory documents related to the controversy as well as other background materials:

Analysis of wetcake distillers grains

Wastewater analysis 

April 2018 citizen complaint

State response to April 2018 complaints

May 2018 state response to complaints

AltEn Stop use & sell letter June 2019

State letter denying permits and discussing problems

May 2018 list of farmers where they spread the waste

July 2018 discussion of wetcake being treated seed

Sept 2020 letter re spills with photos

October 2020 letter of noncompliance

Aerial Photos of site taken by state

How Neonicotinoids Can Kill Bees

Trends in neonicotinoid pesticide residues in food and water in the United States, 1999-2015

Letter from health experts to EPA warning on neonicotinoids

Letter from Endocrine Society to EPA on neonicotinoids 

Neonicotinoid pesticides can stay in the U.S. market, EPA says

Petition to California to regulate neonic-treated seeds

Vanishing Bees: Science, Politics and Honeybee Health (Rutgers University Press, 2017)

Bayer’s bid to settle U.S. Roundup cancer claims making progress

Print Email Share Tweet

Monsanto owner Bayer AG is making progress toward a sweeping settlement of thousands of U.S. lawsuits brought by people alleging they or their loved ones developed cancer after exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicides.

Recent correspondence from plaintiffs’ lawyers to their clients underscored that progress, confirming a large percentage of plaintiffs are opting to participate in the settlement, despite complaints by many plaintiffs that they are facing unfairly small payout proposals.

By some calculations, the average gross settlement will leave little to no compensation, perhaps a few thousand dollars, for individual plaintiffs after attorneys’ fees are paid and certain insured medical costs are reimbursed.

Nevertheless, according to a letter sent to plaintiffs in late November by one of the lead law firms in the litigation, more than 95 percent of the “eligible claimants” decided to participate in the settlement plan negotiated by the firm with Bayer. A “settlement administrator” now has 30 days to review the cases and confirm the plaintiffs’ eligibility to receive settlement funds, according to the correspondence.

People can choose to opt out of the settlement and take their claims to mediation, followed by binding arbitration if they wish or try to find a new lawyer who would take their case to trial. Those plaintiffs could have a difficult time finding a lawyer to help them take their case to trial because the law firms agreeing to the settlements with Bayer have agreed not to try any more cases or assist in future trials.

One plaintiff, who asked not to be identified by name due to the confidentiality of the settlement proceedings, said he is opting out of the settlement in hopes of obtaining more money through mediation or a future trial. He said he requires ongoing tests and treatments for his cancer and the proposed settlement structure would leave him nothing to cover those ongoing costs.

“Bayer wants a release by paying as little as possible without going to trial,” he said.

The rough estimate on average gross payouts per plaintiff is about $165,000, lawyers and plaintiffs involved in the discussions have said.  But some plaintiffs could receive far more, and some less, depending upon the details of their case. There are many criteria determining who can participate in the settlement and how much money that person may receive.

To be eligible, the Roundup user has to be a U.S. citizen, have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and had exposures to Roundup for at least one year prior to being diagnosed with NHL.

The settlement agreement with Bayer will be complete when the administrator confirms that more than 93 percent of claimants qualify, according to the terms of the deal.

If the settlement administrator finds a plaintiff ineligible, that plaintiff has 30 days to appeal the decision.

For plaintiffs deemed eligible the settlement administrator will award each case a number of points based on specific criteria. The amount of money each plaintiff will receive is based on the number of points calculated for their individual situation.

Basis points are established using the age of the individual at the time they were diagnosed with NHL and the level of severity of the “injury” as determined by the degree of treatment and outcome. The levels run 1-5. Someone who died from NHL is assigned basis points for a level 5, for instance. More points are given to younger people who suffered multiple rounds of treatment and/or died.

In addition to the basis points, adjustments are allowed that give more points to plaintiffs who had more exposure to Roundup. There are also allowances for more points for specific types of NHL. Plaintiffs diagnosed with a type of NHL called Primary Central Nervous System (CNS) lymphoma receive a 10 percent boost to their points tally, for example.

People can also have points deducted based on certain factors. Here are a few specific examples from the points matrix established for the Roundup litigation:

  • If a Roundup product user died before January 1, 2009, the total points for the claim brought on their behalf will be reduced by 50 percent.
  • If a deceased plaintiff had no spouse or minor children at the time of their death there is a deduction of 20 percent.
  • If a plaintiff had any prior blood cancers before using Roundup their points are cut by 30 percent.
  • If the span of time between a claimant’s Roundup exposure and the diagnosis of NHL was less than two years the points are cut 20 percent.

The settlement funds should begin to flow to participants in the spring with final payments hopefully made by summer, according to lawyers involved.

Plaintiffs can also apply to be part of an “extraordinary injury fund,” set up for a small group of plaintiffs who suffer from severe NHL-related injuries. A claim may be eligible for the extraordinary injury fund if the individual’s death from NHL came after three or more full courses of chemotherapy and other aggressive treatments.

Since buying Monsanto in 2018, Bayer has been struggling to figure out how to put an end to the litigation that includes more than 100,000 plaintiffs in the United States. The company lost all three trials held to date and has lost the early rounds of appeals seeking to overturn the trial losses. Juries in each of the trials found that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides, such as Roundup, do cause cancer and that Monsanto spent decades hiding the risks.

The jury awards totaled well over $2 billion, though the judgments have been ordered reduced by trial and appellate court judges.

The company’s efforts to resolve the litigation have been stymied in part by the challenge of how to head off claims that could be brought in the future by people who develop cancer after using the company’s herbicides.

Trial Appeals Continue

Even as Bayer aims to head off future trials with settlement dollars, the company continues to try to overturn the outcomes of the three trials the company lost.

In the first trial loss – the Johnson v. Monsanto case – Bayer lost efforts to overturn the jury finding that Monsanto was liable for Johnson’s cancer at the appellate court level, and in October, the California Supreme Court refused to review the case.

Bayer now has 150 days from that decision to ask for the matter to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court. The company has not made a final decision regarding that move, according to a Bayer spokesman, but has indicated previously that it does intend to take such action.

If Bayer does petition the U.S. Supreme Court, Johnson’s attorneys are expected to file a conditional cross-appeal asking the court to examine the judicial actions that slashed Johnson’s jury award from $289 million to $20.5 million.

Other Bayer/Monsanto court cases

In addition to the liability Bayer faces from Monsanto’s Roundup cancer litigation, the company is struggling with Monsanto liabilities in PCB pollution litigation and in litigation over crop damage caused by Monsanto’s dicamba herbicide-based crop system.

A federal judge in Los Angeles last week rejected a proposal by Bayer to pay $648 million to settle class-action litigation brought by claimants alleging contamination from polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, made by the Monsanto.

Also last week, the trial judge in the case of Bader Farms, Inc. v. Monsanto rejected Bayer’s motions for a new trial.  The judge cut the punitive damages awarded by the jury, however, from $250 million to $60 million, leaving intact compensatory damages of $15 million, for a total award of $75 million.

Documents obtained through discovery in the Bader case revealed that Monsanto and chemical giant BASF were aware for years that their plans to introduce a dicamba herbicide-based agricultural seed and chemical system would probably lead to damage on many US farms.

New glyphosate papers point to “urgency” for more research on chemical impact to human health

Print Email Share Tweet

Newly published scientific papers illustrate the ubiquitous nature of the weed killing chemical glyphosate and a need to better understand the impact exposure to the popular pesticide may be having on human health, including the health of the gut microbiome.

In one of the new papers, researchers from the University of Turku in Finland said that they were able to determine, in a “conservative estimate,” that approximately 54 percent of species in the core of the human gut microbiome are “potentially sensitive” to glyphosate. The researchers said they used a new bioinformatics method to make the finding.

With a “large proportion” of bacteria in the gut microbiome susceptible to glyphosate, the intake of glyphosate “may severely affect the composition of the human gut microbiome,” the authors said in their paper, which was published this month in the Journal of Hazardous Materials.

The microbes in the human gut include a variety of bacteria and fungi and are believed to impact immune functions and other important processes. Unhealthy gut microbiomes are believed by some scientists to contribute to a range of diseases.

“Although data on glyphosate residues in human gut systems are still lacking, our results suggest that glyphosate residues decrease bacterial diversity and modulate bacterial species composition in the gut,” the authors said. “We may assume that long-term exposure to glyphosate residues leads to the dominance of resistant strains in the bacterial community.”

The concerns about glyphosate’s impact on the human gut microbiome stem from the fact that glyphosate works by targeting an enzyme known as 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS.) This enzyme is critical to the synthesizing of essential amino acids.

“To determine the actual impact of glyphosate on the human gut microbiota and other organisms, further empirical studies are needed to reveal glyphosate residues in food, to determine the effects of pure glyphosate and commercial formulations on microbiomes and to assess the extent to which our EPSPS amino acid markers predict bacterial susceptibility to glyphosate in in vitro and real-world scenarios,” the authors of the new paper concluded.

In addition to the six researchers from Finland, one of the authors of the paper is affiliated with the department of biochemistry and biotechnology at Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona, Catalonia, in Spain.

“The consequences for human health are not determined in our study. However, based on previous studies… we know that alterations in the human gut microbiome may be connected to several diseases,” University of Turku researcher Pere Puigbo said in an interview.

“I hope that our research study opens the door to further experiments, in-vitro and in the field, as well as population-based studies to quantify the effect the use of glyphosate has on human populations and other organisms,” Puigbo said.

Introduced in 1974

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup herbicides and hundreds of other weed killing products sold around the world. It was introduced as a weed killer by Monsanto in 1974 and grew to become the most widely used herbicide after Monsanto’s introduction in the 1990s of crops genetically engineered to tolerate the chemical. Residues of glyphosate are commonly found on food and in water. Consequently, residues are also often detected in the urine of people exposed to glyphosate through either diet and/or application.

U.S. regulators and Monsanto owner Bayer AG maintain there are no human health concerns with glyphosate exposure when the products are used as intended, including from residues in the diet.

The body of research contradicting those claims is growing, however. The research on the potential impacts of glyphosate on the gut microbiome is not nearly as robust as the literature associating glyphosate to cancer, but is an area many scientists are probing.

In a somewhat related paper published this month, a team of researchers from Washington State University and Duke University said that they had found a correlation between the levels of bacteria and fungi in the gastrointestinal tracts of children and the chemicals found in their homes. The researchers did not look at glyphosate specifically, but were alarmed to find that children with higher levels of common household chemicals in their bloodstream showed a reduction in the amount and diversity of important bacteria in their gut.

Glyphosate in urine

An additional scientific paper published this month underscored a need for better and more data when it comes to glyphosate exposure and children.

The paper, published in the journal Environmental Health by researchers from the Institute for Translational Epidemiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, is the outcome of a literature review of multiple studies reporting actual values of glyphosate in people.

The authors said they analyzed five studies published in the last two years reporting glyphosate levels measured in people, including one study in which urinary glyphosate levels were measured in children living in rural Mexico. Of 192 children living in the Agua Caliente area, 72.91 percent had detectable levels of glyphosate in their urine, and all of the 89 children living in Ahuacapán, Mexico, had detectable levels of the pesticide in their urine.

Even when including additional studies, overall, there is sparse data regarding glyphosate levels in people. Studies globally total only 4,299 people, including 520 children, the researchers said.

The authors concluded that it is not currently possible to understand the “potential relationship” between glyphosate exposure and disease, especially in children, because data collection on exposure levels in people is limited and not standardized.

They noted that despite the lack of solid data about the impacts of glyphosate on children, the amount of glyphosate residues legally allowed by U.S. regulators on food has increased dramatically over the years.

“There are gaps in the literature on glyphosate, and these gaps should be filled with some urgency, given the large use of this product and its ubiquitous presence,” said author Emanuela Taioli.

Children are especially vulnerable to environmental carcinogens and tracking exposure to products such as glyphosate in children is “a pressing public health priority,” according to the authors of the paper.

“As with any chemical, there are multiple steps involved in evaluating risk, which include gathering information about human exposures, so that the levels that produce harm in one population or animal species can be compared to typical exposure levels,” the authors wrote.

“However, we have previously shown that data on human exposure in workers and the general population are very limited. Several other gaps in knowledge exist around this product, for example results on its genotoxicity in humans are limited. The continued debate regarding the effects of glyphosate exposure makes establishing exposure levels in the general public a pressing public health issue, especially for the most vulnerable.”

The authors said monitoring of urinary glyphosate levels should be conducted in the general population.

“We continue to suggest that inclusion of glyphosate as a measured exposure in nationally representative studies like the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey will allow for a better understanding of the risks that glyphosate may pose and allow for better monitoring of those who are most likely to be exposed and those who are more susceptible to the exposure,” they wrote.

New research adds evidence that weed killer glyphosate disrupts hormones

Print Email Share Tweet

New research is adding worrisome evidence to concerns that the widely used weedkilling chemical glyphosate may have the potential to interfere with human hormones.

In a paper published in the journal Chemosphere titled Glyphosate and the key characteristics of an endocrine disruptor: A review, a trio of scientists concluded that glyphosate appears to have eight out of ten key characteristics associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals . The authors cautioned, however, that prospective cohort studies are still needed to more clearly understand the impacts of glyphosate on the human endocrine system.

The authors, Juan Munoz, Tammy Bleak and Gloria Calaf, each affiliated with the University of Tarapacá in Chile, said their paper is the first review to consolidate the mechanistic evidence on glyphosate as an endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC).

Some of the evidence suggests that Roundup, Monsanto’s well-known glyphosate-based herbicide, can alter the biosynthesis of the sexual hormones, according to the researchers.

EDCs may mimic or interfere with the body’s hormones and are linked with developmental and reproductive problems as well as brain and immune system dysfunction.

The new paper follows publication earlier this year of an assortment of animal studies that indicated glyphosate exposures impact reproductive organs and threaten fertility.

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used herbicide, sold in 140 countries. Introduced commercially in 1974 by Monsanto Co, the chemical is the active ingredient in popular products such as Roundup and hundreds of other weed killers used by consumers, municipalities, utilities, farmers, golf course operators, and others around the world.

Dana Barr, a professor at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health, said the evidence “tends to overwhelmingly indicate that glyphosate has endocrine disrupting properties.”

“It’s not necessarily unexpected since glyphosate has some structural similarities with many other endocrine disrupting pesticides; however, it is more concerning because glyphosate use far surpasses other pesticides,” said Barr, who directs a program within a National Institutes of Health-funded human exposure research center housed at Emory. “Glyphosate is used on so many crops and in so many residential applications such that aggregate and cumulative exposures can be considerable.”

Phil Landrigan, director of the Global Observatory on Pollution and Health, and a professor of biology
at Boston College, said the review pulled together “strong evidence” that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor.

“The report is consistent with a larger body of literature indicating that glyphosate has a wide range of adverse health effects – findings that overturn Monsanto’s long-standing portrayal of glyphosate as a benign chemical with no negative impacts on human health,” said Landrigan.

EDCs have been a subject of concern since the 1990s after a series of publications suggested that some chemicals commonly used in pesticides, industrial solvents, plastics, detergents, and other substances could have the capacity to disrupt connections between hormones and their receptors.

Scientists generally recognized ten functional properties of agents that alter hormone action, referring to these as ten “key characteristics” of endocrine-disruptors. The ten characteristics are as follows:

EDC’s can:

  • Alter hormone distribution of circulating levels of hormones
  • Induce alterations in hormone metabolism or clearance
  • Alter the fate of hormone-producing or hormone-responsive cells
  • Alter hormone receptor expression
  • Antagonize hormone receptors
  • Interact with or activate hormone receptors
  • Alter signal transduction in hormone-responsive cells
  • Induce epigenetic modifications in hormone-producing or hormone-responsive cells
  • Alter hormone synthesis
  • Alter hormone transport across cell membranes

The authors of the new paper said a review of the mechanistic data showed that glyphosate met all of the key characteristics with the exception of two:  “Regarding glyphosate, there is no evidence associated with the antagonistic capacity of hormonal receptors,” they said. As well, “there is no evidence of its impact on hormonal metabolism or clearance,” according to the authors.

Research over the last few decades has largely focused on links found between glyphosate and cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL.) In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

More than 100,000 people have sued Monsanto in the United States alleging exposure to the company’s glyphosate-based herbicides caused them or their loved ones to develop NHL.

The plaintiffs in the nationwide litigation also claim Monsanto has long sought to hide the risks of its herbicides. Monsanto lost three out of three trials and its German owner Bayer AG has spent the last year and a half trying to settle the litigation out of court.

The authors of the new paper took note of the ubiquitous nature of glyphosate, saying “massive use” of the chemical has “led to a wide environmental diffusion,” including rising exposures tied to human consumption of the weed killer through food.

The researchers said that though regulators say the levels of glyphosate residue commonly found in foods are low enough to be safe, they “cannot rule out” a “potential risk” to people consuming foods containing contaminated with the chemical,  particularly grains and other plant-based foods, which often have higher levels than milk, meat or fish products.

U.S. government documents show glyphosate residues have been detected in a range of foods, including organic honey, and granola and crackers.

Canadian government researchers have also reported glyphosate residues in foods. One report issued in 2019 by scientists from Canada’s Agri-Food Laboratories at the Alberta Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry found glyphosate in 197 of 200 samples of honey they examined.

Despite the concerns about glyphosate impacts on human health, including through dietary exposure, U.S. regulators have steadfastly defended the safety of the chemical. The Environmental Protection Agency maintains that it has not found any human health risks from exposure to glyphosate.”

Validity of key studies on origin of coronavirus in doubt; science journals investigating

Print Email Share Tweet

By Carey Gillam

Since the outbreak of COVID-19 in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019, scientists have searched for clues about what led to the emergence of its causative agent, the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Uncovering the source of SARS-CoV-2 could be crucial for preventing future outbreaks.

A series of four high profile studies published earlier this year provided scientific credence to the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 originated in bats and then jumped to humans through a type of anteater called a pangolin — among the world’s most trafficked wild animals. While that specific theory involving pangolins has been largely discounted, the four studies known as the “pangolin papers” continue to provide support for the notion that coronaviruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2 circulate in the wild, meaning the SARS-CoV-2 that caused COVID-19 probably comes from a wild animal source. 

The focus on a wild animal source, the “zoonotic” theory, has become a critical element in global discussion about the virus, directing public attention away from the possibility that the virus may have originated inside a Chinese governmental laboratory – the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) has learned, however, that two of the four papers that make up the foundation for the zoonotic theory appear to be flawed, and that the editors at the journals in which the papers were published – PLoS Pathogens and Nature – are investigating the core data behind the studies and how the data was analyzed. The other two similarly appear to suffer flaws.

The problems with the research papers raise “serious questions and concerns” about the validity of the zoonotic theory overall, according to Dr. Sainath Suryanarayanan, a biologist and sociologist of science, and USRTK staff scientist.  The studies lack sufficiently reliable data, independently verifiable data sets and a transparent peer review and editorial process, according to Dr. Suryanarayanan. 

See his emails with senior authors of the papers and journal editors, and analysis: Nature and PLoS Pathogens probe scientific veracity of key studies linking pangolin coronaviruses to origin of SARS-CoV-2.

Chinese governmental authorities first promoted the idea that the source of the causal agent for COVID-19 in humans came from a wild animal in December. Chinese government-supported scientists then backed that theory in four separate studies submitted to the journals between February 7 and 18.

The World Health Organization’s China Joint Mission Team investigating the emergence and spread of COVID-19 in China stated in February : “Since the COVID-19 virus has a genome identity of 96% to a bat SARS-like coronavirus and 86%-92% to a pangolin SARS-like coronavirus, an animal source for COVID-19 is highly likely.” 

The Chinese-initiated focus on a wild animal source helped chill calls for an investigation into the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where animal coronaviruses have long been stored and genetically manipulated. Instead, resources and efforts of the international scientific and policymaking community have been funneled toward understanding the factors shaping contact between people and wildlife. 

The four papers in question are Liu et al., Xiao et al. , Lam et al. and Zhang et al.  The two that are currently being investigated by the journal editors are Liu et al and Xiao et al. In communications with the authors and journal editors of those two papers, USRTK has learned of serious problems with the publication of those studies, including the following:    

  • Liu et al. did not publish or share (upon being asked) raw and/or missing data that would allow experts to independently verify their genomic analyses.
  • Editors at both Nature and PLoS Pathogens, as well as Professor Stanley Perlman, the editor of Liu et al., have acknowledged in email communications that they are aware of serious issues with these papers and that the journals are investigating them. Yet, they have made no public disclosure of the potential problems with the papers.  

The silence of the journals regarding their ongoing investigations means that wider communities of scientists, policymakers and the public impacted by COVID-19 are unaware of the problems associated with the research papers, said Dr. Suryanarayanan. 

“We believe that these issues are important, since they may shape how institutions respond to a catastrophic pandemic that has radically affected lives and livelihoods worldwide,” he said.

Links to these emails can be found here: 

In July 2020, U.S. Right to Know began submitting public records requests in pursuit of data from public institutions in an effort to discover what is known about the origins of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease Covid-19. Since the start of the outbreak in Wuhan, SARS-CoV-2 has killed over a million people, while sickening millions more in a global pandemic that continues to unfold.

On Nov. 5, U.S. Right to Know filed a lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for violating provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., seeks correspondence with or about organizations such as the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as the EcoHealth Alliance, which partnered with and funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

U.S. Right to Know is a nonprofit investigative research group focused on promoting transparency for public health. You can support our research and reporting by donating here. 

California Supreme Court denies review of Monsanto Roundup trial loss

Print Email Share Tweet

The California Supreme Court will not review a California man’s trial win over Monsanto, dealing another blow to Monsanto’s German owner, Bayer AG.

The decision to deny a review in the case of Dewayne “Lee” Johnson marks the latest in a string of court losses for Bayer as it tries to complete settlements with close to 100,000 plaintiffs who each claim they or their loved ones developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma from exposure to Roundup and other Monsanto weed killers. Juries in each of three trials held to date have found not only that the company’s glyphosate-based herbicides cause cancer but also that Monsanto spent decades hiding the risks.

“We are disappointed with the Court’s decision not to review the intermediate appeals court’s decision in Johnson and will consider our legal options for further review of this case,” Bayer said in a statement.  

The Miller Firm, Johnson’s Virginia-based law firm, said the California Supreme Court’s decision denied “Monsanto’s latest attempt to skirt responsibility” for causing Johnson’s cancer.

“Multiple judges have now affirmed the jury’s unanimous finding that Monsanto maliciously  concealed Roundup’s cancer risk and caused Mr. Johnson to develop a deadly form of cancer. The time has come for Monsanto to end its baseless appeals and pay Mr. Johnson the money it owes him,” the firm said.

A unanimous jury found in August 2018 that exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides  caused Johnson to develop a deadly form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The jury further found that Monsanto acted to hide the risks of its products in conduct so egregious that the company should pay Johnson $250 million in punitive damages on top of $39 million in past and future compensatory damages.

Upon appeal from Monsanto, the trial judge reduced the $289 million to $78 million. An appeals court then cut the award to $20.5 million, citing the fact that Johnson was expected to live only a short time.

The appeals court said it reduced the damages award despite finding there was “abundant” evidence that glyphosate, together with the other ingredients in Roundup products, caused Johnson’s cancer and that “there was overwhelming evidence that Johnson has suffered, and will continue to suffer for the rest of his life, significant pain and suffering.”

Both Monsanto and Johnson sought review by the California Supreme Court, with Johnson asking for restoration of a higher damage award and Monsanto seeking to reverse the trial judgment.

Bayer has reached settlements with several of the leading law firms who collectively represent a significant share of the claims brought against Monsanto. In June, Bayer said it would provide $8.8 billion to $9.6 billion to resolve the litigation.

Bayer’s Monsanto headache persists

Print Email Share Tweet

The migraine that is Monsanto doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon for Bayer AG.

Efforts at settling the mass of lawsuits brought in the United States by tens of thousands of people who claim Monsanto’s Roundup herbicides gave them cancer continue to inch forward, but are not addressing all outstanding cases, nor are all plaintiffs offered settlements agreeing to them.

In a letter to U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, Arizona attorney David Diamond said that representations made by the lawyers leading settlement talks with Bayer on behalf of plaintiffs did not accurately reflect the situation for his own clients. He cited a “lack” of “settlement-related experiences” with Bayer and he requested that Judge Chhabria advance several of Diamond’s cases forward for trials.

“Leadership’s representations regarding settlement do not represent my clients’ settlement
related experiences, interests or position,” Diamond told the judge.

Diamond wrote in the letter that he has 423 Roundup clients, including 345 who have cases pending before Chhabria in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Alongside the MDL are thousands of plaintiffs whose cases are pending in state courts.

Diamond’s outreach to the judge followed a hearing late last month in which several of the leading firms in the litigation and lawyers for Bayer told Chhabria they were close to resolving most, if not all, of the cases before the judge.

Bayer has reached important settlements with several of the leading law firms who collectively represent a significant share of the claims brought against Monsanto. In June, Bayer said it would provide $8.8 billion to $9.6 billion to resolve the litigation.

But controversy and conflict have dogged the overall settlement offers.

Several plaintiffs represented by the large firms and who spoke on condition that their names not be used, said they are not agreeing to the terms of the settlements, meaning their cases will be directed into mediation and, if that fails, to trials.

After buying Monsanto in 2018, Bayer has been struggling to figure out how to put an end to the litigation that includes more than 100,000 plaintiffs. The company lost all three of the three trials held to date and has lost the early rounds of appeals seeking to overturn the trial losses. Juries in each of the trials found that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides, such as Roundup, do cause cancer and that Monsanto spent decades hiding the risks.

The company’s efforts to resolve the litigation have been stymied in part by the challenge of how to head off claims that could be brought in the future by people who develop cancer after using the company’s herbicides.

Problems Just Keep Mounting  

Bayer has threatened to file for bankruptcy if it cannot quell the Roundup litigation and on Wednesday the company issued a profit warning and announced billions in cost cuts, citing a “lower than expected outlook in the agricultural market” amid other factors. The news sent shares in the company tumbling.

In reporting Bayer’s troubles Barron’s noted: “The problems just keep mounting for Bayer and its investors, who by now must be used to regular bouts of disappointing news. The stock has now fallen more than 50% since the Monsanto deal was closed in June 2018. “This latest update only adds to the case for the Monsanto deal being one of the worst in corporate history.”