Pursuing truth and transparency for public health

Trial pitting farmers against Syngenta delayed until June

Print Email Share Tweet

A highly anticipated first-ever trial pitting a group of farmers against the global agricultural giant Syngenta AG over allegations that Syngenta’s paraquat weed killer causes Parkinson’s disease has been delayed until June, the parties involved said on Saturday.

The trial was set to begin Monday, livestreamed by Courtroom View Network, but a continuance was ordered setting a new trial date for June 1. A spokesman for the plaintiffs’ legal team said the delay was not due to any settlement efforts, but due to “a combination of scheduling and Covid issues.”

The case is titled Hoffman V. Syngenta and is set for a bench trial in St. Clair County Circuit Court in Illinois before Associate Judge Kevin Hoerner.

The plaintiffs are farmers who developed Parkinson’s after repeated exposure to paraquat products, specifically Syngenta’s widely used Gramoxone brand, and the spouses of those farmers. Three of the original plaintiffs in the case have died, including plaintiff Thomas Hoffman.

Parkinson’s is a disorder that impacts nerve cells in the brain and  leads in advanced cases to severe physical debilitation and often dementia and death.

Experts in the study and treatment of Parkinson’s warn that the disease is on the rise. One such expert, Dutch neurologist Bastiaan Bloem, predicts the number of people suffering from Parkinson’s will double to more than 13 million in the next 20 years.

Bloem is one of many scientists who blame exposure to paraquat as among multiple risk factors for developing Parkinson’s.

Also named as defendants in the case are Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., formed as a joint venture between Chevron USA and Phillips 66. Chevron helped distribute Syngenta’s products in the United States. Illinois agricultural cooperative Growmark is also a defendant for its role in supplying paraquat products.

There are currently at least 20 lawsuits filed in multiple state and federal courts across the country on behalf of plaintiffs who have been diagnosed with Parkinson’s, and claim Syngenta’s paraquat weed killers are to blame.

Lawyer C. Calvin Warriner III, who is not involved in the Hoffman case but has other plaintiffs suing over the same issues, said he predicts “hundreds if not thousands of cases” will be filed in the next year because of “solid” scientific evidence linking paraquat to Parkinson’s.

Paraquat litigation grows, first trial set for May 10

Print Email Share Tweet

Six more lawsuits alleging Syngenta’s weed killing pesticide paraquat causes Parkinson’s Disease were filed last week in Pennsylvania, California and Illinois, adding to more than a dozen similar lawsuits already filed in U.S. courts.

The lawsuits all allege that exposure to paraquat,  which is banned in more than 30 countries though not in the United States, causes the incurable and progressive Parkinson’s disorder that affects nerve cells in the brain, leading in advanced cases to severe physical debilitation and often dementia and death.

Many Parkinson’s experts say the disease can be caused by a range of factors, including exposure to pesticides such as paraquat, as well as other chemicals.

The first trial set to take place in the United States is to begin on May 10 in St. Clair County Circuit Court in Illinois. Missouri lawyer Steve Tillery  is representing the plaintiffs in Hoffman V. Syngenta and said he plans to introduce evidence that includes internal company records showing Syngenta has known for decades that its product causes Parkinson’s Disease.

The defendants in the Hoffman case, as well as the other cases filed, name the Swiss-based Syngenta and Chevron USA as defendants.

Both Chevron and Syngenta deny there is a connection between the disease and the weed killer.

Chevron distributed and sold paraquat products in the United States starting with an agreement with a Syngenta predecessor called Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), which introduced a paraquat-based herbicide called Gramoxone in 1962. Under a license agreement, Chevron had the right to manufacture, use, and sell paraquat formulations in the U.S.

Syngenta says that its paraquat products have been approved as “safe and effective” for more than 50 years and it will “vigorously” defend the lawsuits. Syngenta is owned by China National Chemical Corporation, known as ChemChina.

The complaints were filed on April 30 by a team of law firms: DiCello Levitt Gutzler, Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, P.C. and  Searcy Denney.

Mark DiCello, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys bringing the cases, said Chevron and Syngenta have “long known they were peddling this poison,” and that the science surrounding paraquat “is conclusively on the side of the plaintiffs.”

Jeffrey Goodman, another of the plaintiffs’ attorneys helping bring the litigation said the filings so far are but the “tip of the iceberg” of what he expects to expand into a major mass tort case.

“The manufacturers of paraquat knew for decades that their product was linked to Parkinson’s disease yet chose to hide this information from regulators and the public,” Goodman said.

The newly filed cases are:

The new cases join at least 14 lawsuits filed by eight different law firms in six different federal courts across the country.

Trial lawyers accuse Monsanto, Bayer of “pay-to-appeal scheme,” allege “fraud”

Print Email Share Tweet

The lawyers who led the nationwide U.S. Roundup litigation through three trial victories and forced Monsanto owner Bayer AG into an $11 billion settlement have notified a federal court that they have uncovered evidence of fraud in a secret deal between Monsanto and a lone plaintiff’s lawyer who has not been active in the litigation until recently.

In a series of filings made Thursday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, lawyers from three firms involved in the three successful Roundup trials alerted the court to what they said was an effort by Monsanto to “buy” a favorable appellate court ruling.

The agreement between Monsanto and one plaintiff and his attorney is a “pay-to-appeal scheme,” according to plaintiffs’ lawyers Aimee Wagstaff, Brent Wisner and Jennifer Moore.  The legal team asks the court to dismiss the appeal they allege is the focus of the scheme.

The lawyer involved in cutting the deal with Monsanto is Ashleigh Madison of Southeast Law LLC in Savannah, Georgia.  Madison confirmed various terms of the arrangement with Monsanto to Wagstaff’s firm in an email and phone conversations recounted in a declaration, according to the filings made Thursday.

When contacted for comment, Madison denied the allegations and said her client’s best interests are her “top priority.” She said she looks “forward to further addressing the matter before a court of law, as our system of justice intends.”

Bayer, which bought Monsanto in 2018, also said the claims made by Wagstaff, Wisner and Moore are false.  The company issued a statement saying it has been “completely transparent about its desire to appeal Roundup failure-to-warn cases on federal preemption grounds,” and the deal with Madison and her client is “an appropriate path for such an appeal.”

Monsanto has lost all appeals associated with the first case that went to trial, Johnson v. Monsanto, and has appeals pending in the two subsequent trials it lost. Juries in the three trials found the company’s glyphosate-based weed killers such as Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma suffered by plaintiffs, and that Monsanto failed to warn of the risks.

The company’s primary hope at this point is to get a U.S. Supreme Court finding that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of its products, and stance that those products are not likely to cause cancer, essentially bars complaints that Monsanto didn’t warn of any cancer risk with its herbicides. Monsanto is asserting the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state laws and a duty to warn.

But a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case titled Bates v. Dow Agrosciences established that the EPA’s approval of a product does not rule out claims of a failure to warn brought under state law, and FIFRA expressly states that EPA approval doesn’t constitute an absolute defense. Citing the law and the precedent, more than a dozen federal and state courts have rejected the preemption argument, according to the filing submitted Thursday by the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

If Bayer can force one of the weaker cases to the U.S. Supreme Court and win on preemption, it would thwart the key claims brought by tens of thousands of plaintiffs and likely save Bayer from significant ongoing legal liability costs.

Georgia judge decision

At the heart of the matter is one case, that of Carson v. Monsanto, filed in 2017. The case alleged that plaintiff John Carson developed malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) from exposure to Roundup. The legal team for the nationwide litigation point out in their filing this week that while there is robust scientific evidence associating Roundup exposure to NHL, there is a lack of scientific evidence associating Roundup to MFH, differentiating the case from the bulk of others filed against the company.

The case languished until Monsanto filed a motion with U.S. District Judge R. Stan Baker in Savannah, Georgia seeking a judgment in its favor on the issue of federal preemption. The district court judge found in favor of Monsanto, agreeing the Carson claim was preempted and the company had no duty to warn of a cancer risk. The judge ruled in favor of Carson, however, on claims that Monsanto was negligent and the design of Roundup products was defective.

Monsanto has since told Carson and his attorney to drop the claims they won on and appeal the preemption ruling they lost, according to the declaration filed by David Wool, a lawyer in the Andrus Wagstaff plaintiffs’ firm.

“Monsanto’s counsel, Martin Calhoun of Hollingsworth LLP, told Madison that Monsanto would never pay her client anything unless he appealed the District Court’s preemption decision – a decision that Monsanto won – and that Monsanto was offering to pay Carson money to appeal the decision,” the declaration states.

Monsanto agreed to pay Carson an undisclosed sum only if he will appeal the decision, according to the new court filing. If he does not drop the claims he won and appeal the preemption matter Monsanto has threatened to make him pay nearly $100,000 in legal fees and costs, according to information turned up by Wagstaff, Wisner and Moore’s law firms.

Carson is required by the deal to appeal only the preemption issue and no other elements of his claims, the legal challenge states:

“While Monsanto’s Civil Appeal Statement suggests it paid Carson to settle his claims not subject to this appeal, in truth, it did no such thing. Payment of the first sum was tied to noticing the appeal, not dismissal of any of Carson’s claims. Carson’s attorney openly admits that Monsanto would never pay Carson unless he appealed the district court’s preemption ruling and corroborated, in writing, that the settlement agreement requires Carson to appeal. If Carson does not appeal, he does not get paid. Indeed, his appeal is so central to getting paid that if he elects to not appeal, he is not only bereft of any settlement, but he is also subject to hefty  liquidated damages. Monsanto is paying Carson to appeal and then threatening him if he does not follow through.

“This appeal should be dismissed—any other result would set a dangerous precedent of appellate review being “for sale” to deep-pocketed litigants. This appeal should be dismissed—any other result would set a dangerous precedent of appellate review being “for sale” to deep-pocketed litigants.”

Allowing the Monsanto-manufactured appeal to go forward “risks turning the justice system on its head by allowing deep-pocketed parties to attempt to broaden the scope of favorable rulings they receive by coercing their adversaries to appeal. This Court’s decisions should not be for sale,” the plaintiffs’ team states in their filing. “This sort of judicial manipulation must be loudly and forcefully rejected.”

Monsanto “ulterior motives”

The declaration filed by Wool recounts conversations with Madison, Carson’s attorney. He states: “On March 15, 2021 I called attorney Ashleigh Madison. During the conversation, Madison confirmed her client’s settlement agreement with Monsanto in the Carson case, and stated that the “first payment” was triggered by filing a notice of appeal.  I expressed my concern that Monsanto had concocted this settlement agreement in an attempt to create favorable appellate law for itself. Madison confirmed that this was her understanding as well, stating that she believed Monsanto had “ulterior motives.”

According to Wool, Madison said her client had only a “very slim chance” of winning the appeal Monsanto was inducing them to file. Still, her client would obtain a “high” value from Monsanto, she told Wool, according to the declaration.

In their letter brief to the court, the trial lawyers said because Carson’s counsel admits that Monsanto is paying Carson to appeal a decision Monsanto won at in order to create appellate precedent, the case “warrants immediate dismissal.”

Litigants “cannot buy appellate review of decisions they won. The Court should reject this attempt to manipulate our judicial system and dismiss the appeal with prejudice because Carson and Monsanto are
deceiving the Court by claiming that an actual case or controversy exists when, in truth, this
appeal was bought and paid for by Monsanto,” they wrote. The Carson agreement “erodes the very foundation of our justice system, which is premised on the principle that opposing parties are actually adversarial—not paying each other to manufacture controversies and seek advisory opinions.”

Bayer said in its statement that the trio of trial lawyers are mischaracterizing the facts.

“Under the settlement, the company agreed to pay Carson $100,000 to drop the surviving design defect claims and to pursue the preemption ruling against him,” Bayer said in the statement. “If he succeeds in the appeal, he gets an additional substantial payment. If Carson drops the appeal, he would simply have to return the $100,000 settlement payment because he would be in breach of its terms. Thus, plaintiffs’ characterization of the $100,000 as a ‘penalty’ in a court filing is completely false, and nothing more than an effort to block this appeal on federal preemption grounds which threatens their interests in this litigation.”

Federal court rejects Syngenta’s bid to toss lawsuit over paraquat herbicide

Print Email Share Tweet

A federal judge has denied Swiss chemical company Syngenta’s effort to throw out one of a growing number of lawsuits alleging the company’s weed killing products cause Parkinson’s Disease. The decision offers a boost for the expanding number of law firms and plaintiffs making similar claims.

In an April 12 ruling, U.S. District Judge John Ross in the Eastern District of Missouri denied a motion filed by Syngenta and co-defendant Chevron that sought to dismiss a lawsuit brought by married Missouri couple Henry and Tara Holyfield.

“We were pleased that the court denied the motions to dismiss,” said Steven Crick, an attorney with the firm of Humphrey, Farrington & McClain who is representing the Holyfields. “We are also confident that the defendants’ efforts to dismiss or derail the case will continue.”

The lawsuit alleges Henry Holyfield developed Parkinson’s, a debilitating and incurable progressive nervous system disorder, due to his exposure to paraquat in his work as a crop duster. The suit alleges that paraquat was distributed “without adequate instructions on safe use” and “without instructions or warnings that the paraquat was dangerous to health and life and caused disease.”

Syngenta manufacturers and distributes paraquat-based Gramoxone, a widely used weed killer popular with American farmers but banned in more than 30 countries because it is known to be acutely toxic. Syngenta acknowledges the dangers of accidental poisoning associated with paraquat, and its products carry strict warning labels about precautions needed for safe use.

But the company has denied the validity of scientific research that has found associations between paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s Disease.

Chevron gained sales and distribution rights for Gramoxone paraquat product in the United States in an agreement with a Syngenta predecessor called Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), which introduced paraquat-based Gramoxone in 1962. Under a license agreement, Chevron was granted rights to manufacture, use, and sell paraquat formulations in the U.S.

In their motion to dismiss the case, Syngenta and Chevron argued that the Holyfield claims were preempted by federal law governing regulation of paraquat by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

“Paraquat has been heavily regulated by the EPA for decades under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)…” the motion states. “Through decades of scrutiny, the EPA’s judgment continues to be that paraquat is safe for sale and use so long as EPA-prescribed precautions are taken and instructions are followed. To ensure uniformity, FIFRA prohibits states from imposing any labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” FIFRA’s requirements and EPA-approved labels… But that is exactly what the complaint seeks to do.”

Judge Ross said the argument was flawed. FIFRA states that registration approval by the EPA “does not
constitute an absolute defense” to claims that a product was “mislabeled,” he wrote in his decision. Moreover, a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case titled Bates v. Dow Agrosciences established that the EPA’s approval of a product does not rule out claims of a failure to warn brought under state law.

“This Court is aware of no case since Bates in which a court has declined jurisdiction over a FIFRA-related claim pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction,” the judge wrote in his ruling. “The results of the EPA’s review of paraquat, moreover, will not dictate the success or failure of Plaintiffs’ claims.”

There are currently at least 14 lawsuits filed by eight different law firms in six different federal courts across the country. The lawsuits are all filed on behalf of plaintiffs who have been diagnosed with the neurodegenerative disorder, and they all allege exposure to Syngenta’s paraquat caused their conditions. Several other cases making the same allegations are pending in state courts as well.

The Monsanto Papers – Deadly Secrets, Corporate Corruption, and One Man’s Search for Justice

Print Email Share Tweet

USRTK Research Director Carey Gillam’s new book is out now and garnering glowing reviews. Here is a brief description of the book from publisher Island Press:

Lee Johnson was a man with simple dreams. All he wanted was a steady job and a nice home for his wife and children, something better than the hard life he knew growing up. He never imagined that he would become the face of a David-and-Goliath showdown against one of the world’s most powerful corporate giants. But a workplace accident left Lee doused in a toxic chemical and facing a deadly cancer that turned his life upside down. In 2018, the world watched as Lee was thrust to the forefront of one the most dramatic legal battles in recent history.

The Monsanto Papers is the inside story of Lee Johnson’s landmark lawsuit against Monsanto. For Lee, the case was a race against the clock, with doctors predicting he wouldn’t survive long enough to take the witness stand. For the eclectic band of young, ambitious lawyers representing him, it was a matter of professional pride and personal risk, with millions of their own dollars and hard-earned reputations on the line.

With a gripping narrative force, The Monsanto Papers takes readers behind the scenes of a grueling legal battle, pulling back the curtain on the frailties of the American court system and the lengths to which lawyers will go to fight corporate wrongdoing and find justice for consumers.

See more about the book here. Buy the book at AmazonBarnes & Noble, publisher Island Press or independent book sellers.

Reviews

“A powerful story, well told, and a remarkable work of investigative journalism. Carey Gillam has written a compelling book from beginning to end, about one of the most important legal battles of our time.”  — Lukas Reiter, TV executive producer and writer for “The Blacklist,” “The Practice,” and “Boston Legal”

“The Monsanto Papers blends science and human tragedy with courtroom drama in the style of John Grisham. It is a story of corporate malfeasance on a grand scale – a chilling revelation of the chemical industry’s greed, arrogance, and reckless disregard for human life and the health of our planet. It is a must read.”  — Philip J. Landrigan, MD, Director, Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good, Boston College

“Veteran investigative journalist Carey Gillam tells Johnson’s story in her latest book, “The Monsanto Papers,” a fast-paced, engaging account of how Monsanto and Bayer’s fortunes changed dramatically in such a short span of time. Despite the subject matter — complicated science and legal proceedings — “The Monsanto Papers” is a gripping read that provides an easy-to-follow explanation of how this litigation unfolded, how the jurors reached their verdict and why Bayer appears to be, in effect, throwing up a white flag now.”  — St. Louis Post-Dispatch

“The author builds a convincing case that Monsanto was more interested in protecting the reputation of its cash cow than heeding scientific evidence of its dangerous properties. Gillam is especially good at rendering the complex dynamics of the legal personalities, which adds a further humanizing dimension to Johnson’s story…An authoritative takedown of a corporation that evidently cares little for public health.”  ― Kirkus

“Gillam narrates an of-the-moment reckoning with a major corporation whose products have been marketed as safe since the 1970s. As an examination of both corporate malfeasance and legal maneuvering in torts cases, Gillam’s book personifies the need for consumer protections and safety.”  ― Booklist

“A great read, a page turner. I was totally engrossed by the deception, distortions, and lack of decency of the company.”  — Linda S. Birnbaum, Former Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program, and Scholar in Residence, Duke University

“A powerful book that sheds light on Monsanto and others who have been untouchable for so long!”
— John Boyd Jr., Founder and President, National Black Farmers Association

About the Author

Investigative journalist Carey Gillam has spent more than 30 years reporting on corporate America, including 17 years working for Reuters international news agency. Her 2017 book about pesticide dangers, Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science, won the 2018 Rachel Carson Book Award from the Society of Environmental Journalists and has become a part of the curriculum in several university environmental health programs. Gillam is currently Research Director for the non-profit consumer group U.S. Right to Know and writes as a contributor for The Guardian.

Bayer’s plan for settling future Roundup cancer claims faces broad opposition

Print Email Share Tweet

Dozens of U.S. law firms have formed a coalition to fight a new $2 billion settlement proposal by Monsanto owner Bayer AG that aims to contain the company’s ongoing liability related to claims that Roundup herbicides cause a type of cancer known as non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

The settlement is designed to compensate people who have been exposed to Roundup products and either already have NHL or may develop NHL in the future, but who have not yet taken steps to file a lawsuit.

The small group of lawyers who put the plan together with Bayer say it will “save lives” and provide substantial benefits to people who believe they developed cancer from exposure to the company’s herbicide products.

But many lawyers criticizing the plan say if it is approved it would set a dangerous precedent for other types of litigation involving large numbers of people injured by the products or practices of powerful corporations.

“This is not the direction we want the civil justice system to go,” said attorney Gerald Singleton, whose firm has joined with more than 60 other law firms to oppose Bayer’s plan. “There is no scenario under which this is good for plaintiffs.”

Bayer’s settlement plan was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 3, and must be approved by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in order to become effective. A prior settlement plan submitted last year was scorned by Chhabria and then withdrawn. The judge has been overseeing the federal multidistrict Roundup litigation involving thousands of plaintiffs from around the United States.

Responses to the settlement plan are due March 3 and a hearing on the matter is set for March 31.

A key concern is that current Roundup users who may develop cancer and want to sue in the future will automatically be subject to terms of the class settlement unless they officially opt out of the settlement within a specific time period. One of the terms they would be subject to would bar them from seeking punitive damages in any future lawsuit.

Those terms and others laid out are wholly unfair to farm workers and others who are expected to develop cancer in the future from exposure to the company’s herbicide products, according to Singleton. The plan benefits Bayer and provides “blood money” to the four law firms that worked with Bayer to design the plan, he said.

Those firms working with Bayer to draft and administer the plan would receive a proposed $170 million if the plan takes effect.

Elizabeth Cabraser, one of the lawyers who crafted the new proposed settlement, said the criticism is not a fair description of the settlement. In truth, she said, the plan “provides significant and urgently-needed outreach, education, healthcare access, and compensation benefits” for people who have been exposed to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicides but have not yet developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

“We seek approval of this settlement because it will save lives and enhance quality of life through early diagnosis, assist people… inform them and raise public awareness about the link between Roundup and NHL…” she said.

A spokesman for Bayer did not respond to a request for comment.

The new proposed settlement is aimed at future cases and is separate from the $11 billion Bayer has earmarked to settle existing U.S. Roundup cancer claims. The people impacted by the class settlement proposal are only individuals who have been exposed to Roundup but are not yet in litigation and have taken no steps toward any litigation.

Bayer has been struggling to figure out how to put an end to the Roundup cancer litigation since buying Monsanto in 2018. The company lost all three trials held to date and lost the early rounds of appeals seeking to overturn the trial losses.

Juries in each of the trials found not only that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides cause cancer but also that Monsanto spent decades hiding the risks.

Though the proposed settlement states that it “addresses the four concerns the Court raised regarding the prior, withdrawn settlement,” Singleton and other lawyers involved in the opposition said the new settlement proposal is just as bad as the first.

In addition to the concerns that class members would not have the right to seek claims for punitive damages, the critics also object to the four-year “standstill” period blocking the filing of new lawsuits. The critics also say the plan for notifying people of the class settlement is not sufficient. Individuals would have 150 days following the notification to “opt out” of the class. If they do not opt out, they are automatically in the class.

Critics also object to the proposed formation of a science panel that would act as a “guidepost” for an “extension of compensation options into the future” and to provide evidence about the carcinogenicity – or not – of Bayer’s herbicides.  Given Monsanto’s documented history of manipulating scientific findings, the science panel work would be suspect, said Singleton.

The initial settlement period would run for at least four years and could be extended after that period.  If Bayer elects not to continue the compensation fund after the initial settlement period, it will pay an additional $200 million as an “end payment” into the compensation fund, the settlement summary states.

“Substantial compensation” offered

The law firms that drafted the agreement with Bayer said in their filing to the court that the settlement is structured to provide potential future plaintiffs with “what most serves their interests,” including an option for “substantial compensation” if they develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The plan calls for the establishment of a compensation fund to make awards of between $10,000 and $200,000 per individual class member. “Accelerated Payment Awards” of $5,000 would be available on an expedited basis, requiring just a showing of exposure and diagnosis.

Those people first exposed to Roundup products at least 12 months prior to their diagnosis would be qualified for awards. Awards of  more than $200,000 could be made for “extraordinary circumstances.” Those qualified class members who were diagnosed with NHL before January 1, 2015, would not receive awards more than $10,000, according to the plan. 

The settlement would provide free legal advice and provide ”support to assist class members in navigating, registering, and applying for Settlement benefits.”

Additionally, the proposal states that the settlement will fund medical and scientific research into the diagnosis and treatment of NHL.

Notably, the plan states that no one will lose their right to sue unless they choose to accept compensation from the compensation fund, and no one needs to make that choice until that individual class member is diagnosed with NHL. They would not be able to seek punitive damages but could seek other compensation.

“Any class members who do not file a claim and accept individual compensation retain their right to sue Monsanto for compensatory damages on any legal theory, including personal injury, fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, false advertising, and violation of any consumer protection or unfair and deceptive acts or practices statute,” the plan states.

To alert people to the class action settlement, notices would be mailed/emailed to 266,000 farms, businesses and organizations and government entities where the company’s herbicides could have been used as well as to 41,000 people who have non-Hodgkin lymphoma and asked to receive information about their disease. Additionally posters would be mailed to 2,700 stores asking them to post notices of the class action settlement.

As part of the proposed settlement, Bayer said it would seek permission from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to add information on the labels of its glyphosate-based products such as Roundup that would provide links to access to scientific studies and other information about glyphosate safety. But critics say providing a website links is inadequate and Bayer needs to put a straightforward warning of cancer risk on the weed killing products.

The proposed class action settlement threatens to affect “hundreds of thousands or even millions” of people who have been exposed to Roundup and “raises ‘unique’ and profound questions” under the U.S. Constitution, according to a court filing in opposition to the Bayer plan made by plaintiffs’ lawyer Elizabeth Graham.

Graham told the court that if the plan is approved it could have a “dramatic effect not only on this litigation, but on the future of mass tort litigation.”

Black farmers

 The National Black Farmers Association (NBFA) weighed in on the issue on Wednesday, submitting a lengthy filing with Chhabria’s court that states a “substantial proportion” of its more than 100,000 members “have been exposed to and potentially injured by Roundup, and its active ingredient glyphosate.”

Many of the farmers have already developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma they blame on Roundup use, and “an even larger proportion fear that they will soon develop symptoms,” the NBFA filing states.

The NBFA wants to see Roundup products removed from commerce or other changes made to protect farmers, the filing states.

The concerns of the NBFA need to be addressed by the court, particularly as Bayer looks to “settle a class action with a set of attorneys who purport to be representing the future interests of all farmers who have been exposed to Roundup but are yet to develop the cancers it causes.”

Lawsuits in Australia

As Bayer works to bring an end to Roundup litigation in the United States, the company is also dealing with similar claims by farmers and others in Australia. A class action filed against Monsanto is underway, and the lead plaintiff John Fenton, who applied Roundup as part of farm work. Fenton was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2008.

A series of key dates have been established: Monsanto has until March 1 to provide discovery documents to plaintiffs’ lawyers and June 4 is the deadline set for the exchange of expert evidence.  The parties are to enter into mediation by July 30 and if nothing is resolved the case would go to trial in March 2022.

Fenton said while he would “love the opportunity” to go to trial and tell his story, he hopes mediation will resolve the matter. “I think the consensus is starting to change thanks to what has been happening in the US. Farmers are more aware and I believe they do take more precautions than they used to.

Fenton said he hopes that Bayer ultimately will put a warning label on Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicides.

“At least with a warning the user can make up their own mind about what PPE (personal protective equipment) they choose to wear.”

EPA’s assessments of chemicals draws criticism from its own scientists

Print Email Share Tweet

Many U.S. scientists working for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) say they don’t trust the agency’s senior leaders to be honest and they fear retaliation if they were to report a violation of the law, according to a survey of employees conducted in 2020.

According to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey for 2020, which was conducted by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 75 percent of EPA workers in the National Program Chemicals Division who responded to the survey indicated that they did not think the agency’s senior leadership maintained “high standards of honesty and integrity.” Sixty-five percent of the workers responding from the Risk Assessment Division answered the same way.

Also alarming, 53 percent of respondents in the EPA’s Risk Assessment Division said they could not disclose a suspected violation of the law or regulation without fear of reprisal. Forty-three percent of responding EPA workers in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) answered the same way.

The negative sentiments reflected in the survey results coincide with mounting reports of malfeasance inside EPA’s chemical assessment programs, according to the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

“It should be of grave concern that more than half the EPA chemists and other specialists working on crucial public health concerns do not feel free to report problems or flag violations,” PEER Executive Director Tim Whitehouse, a former EPA enforcement attorney, said in a statement.

Earlier this month, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine said the EPA’s hazard assessment practices within the framework of the Toxic Substances Control Act were of “critically low quality.”

“EPA’s new leadership will have its hands full righting this sinking ship,” Whitehouse said.

After taking office in January, President Joe Biden issued an executive order noting that the EPA under Biden may diverge in its position on several chemicals from decisions made by the agency under previous president Donald Trump.

In correspondence dated Jan. 21, the EPA Office of General Counsel said the following:

“In conformance with President Biden’s Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis issued January 20, 2021, (Health and Environment EO), this will confirm my request on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seek and obtain abeyances or stays of proceedings in pending litigation seeking judicial review of any EPA regulation promulgated between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, or seeking to establish a deadline for EPA to promulgate a regulation in connection with the subject of any such

Another Roundup study finds links to potential human health problems

Print Email Share Tweet

(Updated February 17, adding criticism of study)

A new scientific paper examining the potential health impacts of Roundup herbicides found links between exposure to the weed killing chemical glyphosate and an increase in a type of amino acid known to be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease.

The researchers made their determinations after exposing pregnant rats and their newborn pups to glyphosate and Roundup through drinking water. They said they looked specifically at the effects of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) on urinary metabolites and interactions with the gut microbiome in the animals.

The researchers said they found a significant increase of an amino acid called homocysteine in male rat pups exposed to glyphosate and Roundup.

“Our study provides initial evidence that exposures to commonly used GBH, at a currently acceptable human exposure dose, is capable of modifying urine metabolites in both rat adults and pups,” the researchers stated.

The paper, titled “Low-dose exposure of glyphosate-based herbicides disrupt the urine metabolome and its interaction with gut microbiota,” is authored by five researchers affiliated with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and four from the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, Italy. It was published in the journal Scientific Reports February 5.

The authors acknowledged many limitations with their study, including a small sample size, but said their work showed that “gestational and early-life low-dose exposure to glyphosate or Roundup significantly altered multiple urine metabolomic biomarkers, in both dams and offspring.”

The study is the first on urinary metabolomic changes induced by glyphosate-based herbicides at doses currently considered safe in humans, the researchers said.

The paper follows the publication last month of a study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives that found glyphosate and a Roundup product can alter the composition of the gut microbiome in ways that may be linked to adverse health outcomes. Scientists from the Ramazzini Institute were also involved in that research.

Robin Mesnage, one of the authors of the paper published last month in Environmental Health Perspectives, took issue with the validity of the new paper. He said the data analysis showed the differences detected between the animals exposed to glyphosate and those not exposed – the control animals – could have been similarly detected with randomly generated data.

“Overall, the data analysis doesn’t support the conclusion that glyphosate disrupts the urine metabolome and the gut microbiota of the exposed animals,” said Mesnage. “This study will only further confuse a bit more the debate on the toxicity of glyphosate.”

Several recent studies on glyphosate and Roundup have found an array of concerns.

Bayer, which inherited Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide brand and its glyphosate-tolerant genetically engineered seed portfolio when it bought the company in 2018, maintains that an abundance of scientific study over decades confirms that glyphosate does not cause cancer. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and many other international regulatory bodies also do not consider glyphosate products to be carcinogenic.

But the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015 said a review of scientific research found ample evidence that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.

Bayer has lost three out of three trials brought by people who blame their cancers on exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides, and Bayer last year said it would pay roughly  $11 billion to settle more than 100,000 similar claims.

 

 

Bayer makes new $2 billion plan to head off future Roundup cancer claims

Print Email Share Tweet

Monsanto owner Bayer AG said Wednesday it was attempting again to manage and resolve potential future Roundup cancer claims, laying out a $2 billion deal with a group of plaintiffs’ attorneys that Bayer hopes will win approval from a federal judge who rejected a prior plan last summer.

Notably, the deal calls for Bayer to seek permission from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to add information on the labels of its glyphosate-based products such as Roundup that would provide  links to access to scientific studies and other information about glyphosate safety.

Additionally, according to Bayer, the plan calls for establishment of a fund that would compensate “qualified claimants” over a four-year program; setting up an advisory science panel whose findings could be used as evidence in potential future litigation; and development of research and diagnostic programs for medical and/or scientific research into the diagnosis and treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The plan must be approved by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Chhabria has been overseeing the Roundup multidistrict litigation.

Bayer said qualifying class members over the next four years would be eligible for levels of compensatory awards based on guidelines set forth in the agreement. The “settlement class” refers to people who were exposed to Roundup products but have not yet filed a lawsuit claiming injury from that exposure.

Settlement class members would be eligible for compensation between $10,000 and $200,000, Bayer said.
According to the agreement, the distribution of the settlement fund would break out as follows:
* Compensation Fund – At least $1.325 billion
* Diagnostic Accessibility Grant Program – $210 million
* Research Funding Program – $40 million
* Settlement Administration Costs, Advisory Science Panel Costs, Settlement Class Notice Costs, Taxes,
and Escrow Agent Fees and Expenses – Up to $55 million
The proposed settlement plan for future class action litigation is separate from the settlement agreement Bayer made with lawyers for tens of thousands of plaintiffs who have already brought claims alleging exposure to Roundup and other Monsanto glyphosate-based weed killers caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Bayer has been struggling to figure out how to put an end to the Roundup cancer litigation since buying Monsanto in 2018. The company lost all three trials held to date and lost the early rounds of appeals seeking to overturn the trial losses.
Juries in each of the trials found not only that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides cause cancer but also that Monsanto spent decades hiding the risks.

New study examines Roundup herbicide impact on honeybees

Print Email Share Tweet

A group of Chinese researchers has found evidence that commercial glyphosate-based herbicide products are harmful to honeybees at or below recommended concentrations.

In a paper published in the online journal Scientific Reports, researchers affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing and the Chinese Bureau of Landscape and Forestry, said they found a range of negative impacts on honeybees when exposing the bees to Roundup – a glyphosate-based product sold by Monsanto owner Bayer AG.

The memory of the honeybees was “significantly impaired after exposure to Roundup” suggesting that chronic honeybee exposure to the weed killing chemical “may have a negative impact on the search and collection of resources and the coordination of foraging activities” by bees, the researchers said.

As well, the “climbing ability of honeybees significantly decreased after treatment with the recommended concentration of Roundup,” the researchers found.

The researchers said there is a need for a “reliable herbicide spraying early warning system” in rural areas of China because beekeepers in those areas are “usually not informed before herbicides are sprayed” and “frequent poisoning incidents of honeybees” occur.

The production of many important food crops is dependent upon honeybees and wild bees for pollination, and noted declines in bee populations has raised concerns around the world about food security.

A paper out of Rutgers University published last summer warned that “crop yields for apples, cherries and blueberries across the United States are being reduced by a lack of pollinators.”

Subscribe to our newsletter. Get weekly updates in your inbox.