Roundup

Over the past month, 14 new cases have been added to the Roundup cancer MDL, bringing the total number of pending cases to 4,414. This increase is somewhat unexpected, especially considering the growing trend of Roundup litigation moving to state courts, where plaintiffs have achieved notable victories over the last 18 months. Despite this, the relatively small number of new filings indicates that the MDL may be approaching its conclusion, with the majority of legal proceedings now taking place in state court systems.

Recent research reveals that exposure to glyphosate from genetically modified (GM) crops has negatively impacted perinatal health in rural U.S. communities, particularly affecting historically marginalized populations. The study highlighted that glyphosate usage surged by 750% over two decades following the introduction of GM seeds. This sharp rise in exposure was linked to lower birth weights and shortened gestation periods, with the most significant consequences for infants already vulnerable to low birth weight.

During the confirmation hearings, it was highlighted that RFK Jr. received compensation for his involvement in the Roundup litigation.

Reports are still emerging, though unverified, that some plaintiff attorneys are settling all or portions of their backlog of Roundup-related lawsuits.

Monsanto has filed an appeal against a $175 million jury verdict in Pennsylvania Superior Court, seeking to reverse the decision that favored Ernest Caranci, who claimed that Roundup weedkiller was the cause of his cancer.

Monsanto contends that a court clerk improperly influenced the jury’s decision by implying that additional deliberation days would be required before a mistrial could be declared. The company argues that this guidance deviated from the standard procedure in Pennsylvania and exerted undue pressure on the jury to deliver a verdict.

In addition, the appeal challenges several evidentiary decisions made by Judge James C. Crumlish III, particularly the exclusion of evidence demonstrating a global scientific consensus regarding the safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. Monsanto asserts that excluding this information, while allowing a foreign report that supported the plaintiff’s case, created an imbalance and compromised the fairness of the trial. Monsanto also references the Third Circuit’s Schaffner v. Monsanto decision, which addresses state law failure-to-warn claims, as part of its appeal rationale.

Overall, the basis for Monsanto’s appeal appears weak and lacks substantial merit.

A Chicago Roundup trial ended in a mistrial after the defense introduced an irrelevant and prejudicial reference to a past alcohol-related criminal charge against the plaintiff during cross-examination. The judge condemned this action as “serious misconduct,” stating it unfairly prejudiced the jury, and warned the defense against further improper tactics.

The plaintiffs argued that the mention of the charge, which had no relevance to the case, served only to bias the jury and warranted a mistrial. Legal experts criticized Monsanto’s attorneys for the move, noting that such evidence is inadmissible under basic rules of evidence.

In the Womack trial held in Philadelphia, Monsanto secured a victory against claims related to Roundup exposure. Despite being represented by experienced plaintiffs’ attorneys and following a previous $78 million verdict in a similar case, the trial presented challenges. The plaintiff’s claim was based on only ten residential uses of Roundup starting in 2015, making it a more difficult case to win. While this outcome highlights the complexities of such litigation, it’s a reminder that not every trial will result in a plaintiff’s victory. 

The Roundup multidistrict litigation (MDL) saw six new cases added in October 2024, bringing the total number of pending cases to 4,355. This relatively small increase reflects the ongoing but slowing pace of new claims being filed. The MDL continues to serve as a hub for handling the large number of Roundup lawsuits, streamlining the process for plaintiffs seeking justice for damages caused by the weed killer.

A Massachusetts state court ruled that federal law preempts a plaintiff’s claims that Monsanto failed to warn about the dangers of Roundup, delivering a setback for the plaintiff. While the court allowed design defect claims to proceed, losing the failure-to-warn argument weakens the case significantly.

The decision aligns with the 3rd Circuit’s ruling in Schaffner v. Monsanto, raising concerns among legal experts. Critics fear this precedent could encourage more courts to adopt similar rulings, providing judges inclined to protect corporations like Monsanto with a stronger legal basis for dismissing failure-to-warn claims.