A 2015 report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer provoked several lawsuits against Monsanto (now Bayer) after the agency found a link between the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate. A U.S. court is currently examining whether or not glyphosate cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and if Bayer-Monsanto knew of and tried to bury evidence of its carcinogenic product.
The Carlson Law Firm is a national mass torts law firm pursuing litigation against various corporations. Our attorneys are involved in the baby powder lawsuits, TIVAD lawsuits, Tylenol lawsuits and more.
Link mentioned:
Of Mice, Monsanto and a Mysterious Tumor
Resources:
EPA Glyphosate Study
Monsanto and EPA work together to slow glyphosate study
A 2015 report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer provoked several lawsuits against Monsanto (now Bayer) after the agency found a link between the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate. A U.S. court is currently examining whether or not glyphosate cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and if Bayer-Monsanto knew of and tried to bury evidence of its carcinogenic product.
The Carlson Law Firm is a national mass torts law firm pursuing litigation against various corporations. Our attorneys are involved in the baby powder lawsuits, TIVAD lawsuits, Tylenol lawsuits and more.
Link mentioned:
Of Mice, Monsanto and a Mysterious Tumor
Resources:
EPA Glyphosate Study
Monsanto and EPA work together to slow glyphosate study
Monsanto interestingly does warn to not ingest or digest roundup, which seems kind of obvious and it warrants not to put it in your eyes or that you may have agitation with your skin. But to date they haven't warned that it may be linked to cancer, that it may cause non Hodgkin's lymphoma
Speaker 2:from the Carlson law firm. Welcome to season one of the burden, a podcast about the laws and processes that shape the real courtroom outcomes with personal injury cases. I'm your host Kazia Conway.
Speaker 1:My name's Joe Craven. I'm an associate attorney at the Carlson law firm working in our mass torts department. Joe is one of the attorneys handling our round of cancer lawsuit cases. So roundup has been around since 1974. Um, it's an herbicide that's designed to kill weeds when you're trying to grow different, um, agricultural items. It's used on both massive scales, but also homeowners spraying weeds in their flower beds are in their driveway
Speaker 2:each year. Billions of pounds around up are sprayed on plenty of weeds everywhere. In fact, roundup is the most popular herbicide in the world. Its active ingredient. Glyphosate is one of the most efficient we killers of all time. However, there's plenty of scientific evidence that glyphosate is also the cause of non Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Speaker 1:Roundup has actually been in litigation for several years now. There's an MDL in California, a multidistrict litigation, a consolidation of a lot of the roundup cases out there. Can you tell us what non Hodgkin's lymphoma is? So Nhl, non Hodgkin's lymphoma is a cancer that affects your lympho sites, a specific subset of your white blood cells.
Speaker 2:Non Hodgkin's lymphoma is the sixth most common cancer in the United States. In 2018 doctors diagnosed about 74,000 people with Nhl and almost 20,000 people die from the disease each year. Nhl affects the lymphatic system, a part of the body's immune system, much like any other cancer. The prognosis of a patient largely depends on when the cancer is caught. What is it
Speaker 1:correlation between roundup and non non Hodgkin's lymphoma. The correlation really goes back to one of its main ingredients. Glyphosate. Glyphosate is been in roundup since it was first made back in the 70s
Speaker 2:in 2015 the International Agency for research on cancer published the results of a year long study which found the link between glyphosate and cancer
Speaker 1:and that what really sparked this whole litigation process that that notification that an active ingredient in roundup, a product to use by all sorts of people all across the country, all across the world could be linked to cancer.
Speaker 2:The MDL trial that Joe mentioned actually brought a big victory for roundup plaintiffs. On March 27th, 2019 a six person jury in San Francisco awarded$80 million to Eric Harnaman. A man who asserts roundup caused has non Hodgkin's lymphoma. It is the second case that a jury has ruled against bear Monsonto to the tune of millions of dollars. In the first case I California jury awarded and groundskeeper named Dwayne Johnson almost$300 million. The award was so high because the jury was able to factor in punitive damages, but the hardest one case is one of three cases that we'll examine different aspects of the science against roundup and the conspiratorial evidence against bear. Monsanto. Is there evidence that roundups mini picture Monsanto knew about the dangers and the products aren't an ingredient?
Speaker 1:Yeah, and that's one of the big issues as to why the case going on was bifurcated. That the judge wanted the jury to focus on causation. Not necessarily did Monsanto know about it or not. The plaintiffs brought up the argument that bifurcating the case was unfair because the jurors may be led to believe that glyphosate wasn't dangerous, uh, simply because it wasn't unreal or simply because it was unregulated for so long.
Speaker 2:It's important to note here the distinction and who regulates pesticides. The EPA insurance pesticides are safe for human health and the environment. The EPA also sets exposure limits. The FDA on the other hand, is responsible for the pesticide residue limits that the EPA sets in food. There are currently no occupational exposure limits for glyphosate, which would be enforced by Osha.
Speaker 1:There are several emails that the judge in the MDL made public by unsealing in the court records that Monsanto officials made comments about ghost writing certain reports, certain studies that almost um, covered up their knowledge of glyphosate being linked to cancer. The judge made a ruling. The science it's being hammered out I think is how you referred to it. Judge made a ruling to bifurcate that first trial. Um, and really all that means is it's being divided into two parts. Step one is their science that shows roundup is linked to non Hodgkin's lymphoma. And if so, then we move on to step two to determine damages.
Speaker 2:The outcome of either of the phases in the bifurcated mdls affect how non Hodgkin's lymphoma roundup claims move forward.
Speaker 1:Absolutely. Um, the point of mdls is to efficiently move through a large group of cases that it's, it's different from a class action in the sense that everyone has their own unique story to be told. But in order to tell thousands of stories that are being consolidated into, whether it be a federal MDL or a state consolidation, the judge makes a series of rulings that impact all the cases. If the bifurcation in the specific trial that's going on in the Hardiman trial, if phase one goes against the plaintiffs, then that case is over. The jury is making ruling that no, it doesn't look like glyphosate is linked to non Hodgkin's lymphoma. Therefore the case is over. It doesn't make sense to proceed to the damages question because there's no causation ruling. That kind of ruling doesn't kill the whole MDL. It doesn't kill all the cases going on, but what it does do is set almost a precedent to Monsanto or bear now that they're capable of getting successful rulings, that they don't have that mentality that they're going to be hit with several different trials in a row of causation rulings against them for the plaintiffs.
Speaker 2:So could that hurt the possibility of them wanting to settle some of these
Speaker 1:cases? Yeah. That if they start to get on a roll and have several different verdicts, um, there are several different jury responses of no, we don't think glyphosate is linked to not Hodgkin's, then they don't have that incentive to settle. If they start getting several that say yes, it is linked. Yes it is linked. Yes it is linked. That may lead to some sort of settlement,
Speaker 2:but much like the Duane Johnson case, the Hardiman case did go in the favor of those who are pursuing claims against bear Monsanto with the causation question out of the way, the question of whether or not Monsanto work to cover up the damning science will come into the courts focus.
Speaker 1:If I can kill a specific review, a specific study that was sparked by the I a r c alert of glyphosate being probably carcinogenic to humans, um, then that person should deserve a medal. That was an email between Monsanto and, uh, some sort of official indicating that, hey, I'm going to try to help you guys out essentially.
Speaker 2:But it wasn't just a single official in the environmental protection agency who worked a slow epidural safety review of the top selling herbicide. It was several emails obtained through the freedom of Information Act show that in early 2015 the EPA and Monsanto began working together to stall a toxicology review of glyophosphate by the Centers for Disease Control and prevention. Monsanto doesn't want this information to taint the jury, which is why it asked for the MDL bifurcation. Why is there such widespread over reply
Speaker 1:phosphates, carcinogenic properties. That really goes back to a little bit of the Monsanto cover up, but also the I a r c, um, study that came out and the judge and the MDL is kind of touched on that several times throughout his dobber rulings indicating that the IARC classification of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen to humans is really what is called the hazard assessment. Not necessarily a risk assessment. The IRC is a division of the World Health Organization put together to do studies to really determine is something like hazard yes or no? Not necessarily. Is it a risk? The risk goes into more of the math side of things if you will, really how much glyphosate is needed to be linked to non Hodgkin's lymphoma versus can glyphosate cause non Hodgkin's lymphoma. What are some of the professional backgrounds of our clients? We represent a wide variety of individuals. The classic examples of roundup users are farmers, agriculture users, people who use it in massive quantities that are spraying it every day. However, there are also homeowners, I'm sure walking through the department stores or home good stores. People see roundup on shelves up and down the Isles. Homeowners use it on a regular basis. I'm sure several people just have bottles of it sitting in their sheds are in their backyards. We were presented a lot of those people as well that don't necessarily spray it every day, but have been exposed to it on a regular basis throughout the last several years and over the course of their lives.
Speaker 2:Many of the Carlson law firm's clients were exposed to roundup for decades, but the first case to ever challenge bear Monsanto on the safety of its product is one example of just how badly needed glyphosate. It needs to be regulated for occupational exposure limits.
Speaker 1:So the first roundup trial to actually go from start to finish occurred out in a state court in California with the last couple of months. Um, the plaintiff's name was Dwayne Johnson. He was a groundskeeper for a school district out in California. And that case is a little bit different than the one moving forward right now, not just from different plaintiff perspective, but in the sense that the court is handling the case in a much different way. The Duane Johnson cases being handled different procedurally compared to the current case going on in the federal MDL in the sense that the federal MDL has bifurcated the trial. That Johnson trial was not bifurcated. Really what that means is in the Johnson case, the jury, at the same time, they were all the causation arguments. Also got to hear about Monsanto's emails and cover ups and everything. We were just talking about that, that rather than having two separate questions, um, and being able to determine how Monsanto's actions linked up to the different federal agencies report, the federal MDL cases only hearing the scientific side of everything, that they're not having the chance to hear the full picture once. It's part of the reason why the judge in the Johnson case reduced that nearly$300 million verdict to about$79 million. Part of the damages awarded in the Johnson case where punitive damages essentially damages not to make Mr. Johnson whole as a result of the injuries Monsanto cost em, but damages designed to punish Monsanto for their wrongful actions, for their cover up, for their emails linked to covering up knowing that they knew about the science. The punitive damages were close to 250 million, but the judge after the verdict reduced them down to a number equal to, I believe the compensatory damages. So it was closer to 30$35 million.
Speaker 2:So did Monsanto actually know that it's product was a carcinogen? Well. The short of it is that there is evidence that Monsanto has known that it's product was linked to cancer for decades. Despite this, the company has actively worked to beat back these allegations against its product since at least the 1980s in 1984 the US EPA was on the brink of labeling glyphosate as a possible carcinogen, but Monsanto refuse to let that happen. The company hired its own scientist to look over the test. EPA toxicology experts conducted. Eventually the scientist hired by Monsanto found tumors in the rats that weren't given doses of glyphosate. The tumors were in line with the rats that had been given glyphosate by EPA toxicology experts. This led to the EPA backing off its initial inclination that glyphosate was dangerous to humans. The Huffington post ran a great piece on this. You can find the link in the show notes. Yeah. Does the fact that Monsanto warns about quiet, busy getting in your mouth or your eyes, does it help or hurt beef cases?
Speaker 1:Hang a warning on a product and products liability or just general negligence cases? You could look at it as a pro or a con, a pro in the sense that the defendant is essentially saying, yes, my product is associated with this disease, this cancer. Um, the con is that they may be trying to narrow the scope of their warning that they're trying to say, yes, it is carcinogenic, but only in these extreme circumstances such as someone who's a farmer who sprays gallons and gallons of roundup all the time.
Speaker 2:But couldn't the argument be made that if I'm spraying something and it's windy outside, that it could go into my mouth or into my eyes or something?
Speaker 1:Absolutely. Are people who live next to farms that have roundup sprayed on them on a very regular basis. They may be the homeowner who only sprays it on the weed sitting in their driveway every now and then. But exposures, exposure, if you're being exposed to that much of the product, the studies show that you have an increased risk of developing non-hodgkins. What studies are those? There are several experts testifying in the are expected to testify in this upcoming trial that um, are extremely confident in the links to say the least, that while others including Monsanto is experts are saying that the link isn't there at all or that the link is a very, very small one. The experts at the plaintiff's expect to have testimony from are all doing their independent studies to do their own epidemiological studies indicating that glyphosate is linked to non Hodgkin's. I are a product liability attorney is important. Product liability attorneys are important to help people the way any personal injury attorney does. Thankfully our farmers made up of a lot of caring personal injury attorneys that understand the importance of having someone story told that people get hurt by someone or something else and product liabilities are specifically important because those companies that hurt other people are oftentimes the big bad companies that have a lot of money that can put up a fight just to try to make something go away. We're here to make sure those people stories don't just get swept under the rug. That those stories, people, those people stories are told. And
Speaker 2:what is the importance of pursuing claims against companies who make defective products?
Speaker 1:We want to make sure that any company, whether it be an individual company, um, is held accountable for the negligence or defective products that they put out into the general public. Why should it be
Speaker 2:person considered filing to round up lawsuit? Yeah.
Speaker 1:Uh, someone should consider filing a roundup claim if they or a loved one has been using roundup for quite some time or even the people who use it on a, a weekly or monthly basis and have been diagnosed with some sort of non Hodgkin's lymphoma. Non has several different subcategories. But um, anytime someone's diagnosed with cancer, it's obviously a life altering status. It isn't something to be taken lightly, but if there's a specific cause out there that they think is linked to their non-hodgkin's, they should deserve justice for it.
Speaker 2:Alright. And on what grounds can a person to bring a claim against Monsanto or Bayer now? Right, right. Bear. Right.
Speaker 1:Bought out Monsanto. There are several different theories alleged in the complaint against Monsanto, but there's the negligence theories, which essentially were they acting reasonable? Did they know or should have known about the link of glyphosate to non Hodgkin's? And with that knowledge did they act like a reasonable company would have. Um, the, so that's the negligence side, but also the product liability side goes to the defective design, the defective manufacturing process, the absence of a warning. There are several different quote unquote product liability claims. There's design defect manufacturing defect or failure to warn. Um, all of those have been alleged in these roundup cases and each one of them is up for trial.
Speaker 2:Chemical should be toxic to their intended targets, not to humans. As roundup moves through the court system, it may be time for us to re evaluate life phosphates presence in our crops, in our food and in the workplace. Visit us at cross an attorney's dot com where we offer valuable resources on the topics you just listened to him. We'd also love for you to leave us a review wherever you get your podcast. And don't forget to subscribe and recommend this to your friends. You can also find us on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram by searching the cross law firm. And as always, if you're in need of a personal injury attorney, give us a call at(800) 359-5690 we are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We cared
Speaker 3:and we can help.