Monsanto Roundup trial win overturned; EPA issues cited

Company's bid for regulatory shield doesn't hold water, court finds

(UPDATED with Bayer response)

An Oregon appeals court on Wednesday overturned a trial victory by Monsanto owner Bayer AG in a decision that adds to an ongoing debate over the company’s efforts to create a nationwide legal and legislative shield from lawsuits alleging Roundup weed killer causes cancer.    

The court found that the trial judge in the case improperly barred key evidence about the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from being presented to the jury, which could have led the jury to find in favor of the plaintiff. And, notably, the court rejected arguments by the company that claims about the dangers of its products should be barred because those products carry the EPA’s stamp of approval.

Other courts have similarly rejected so-called “preemption” arguments by Bayer, which bought Monsanto in 2018. But after failing to get court backing, Bayer has been pushing state and federal lawmakers to give it and other pesticide makers the protection the courts have rejected. A proposed measure is being considered by lawmakers for inclusion in the US Farm Bill. Monsanto unsuccessfully argued  to the appeals court that the case never should have even gone to a jury because the claims should have been preempted.

In a statement issued following the ruling, Bayer said it disagreed with the court’s ruling and was considering its legal options. "We remain confident that Roundup was not responsible for the alleged injuries in this case based on the overwhelming weight of scientific research and assessments by leading health regulators and scientists worldwide, including both the EPA and the EU, that support the safety of glyphosate-based products," the company said in the statement. Bayer said it has "achieved favorable outcomes in 13 of the last 19 trials, including the last four, and has resolved the overwhelming majority of claims in this litigation. 

Attorney Andrew Kirkendall, who represented the plaintiff in the case, said he welcomed the court’s decision and was eager to retry the case with the evidence about the EPA included.

“Not harmless” 

The testimony that the trial judge refused to allow was to have come from Charles Benbrook, a former research professor who served at one time as executive director of the National Academy of Sciences board on agriculture. Benbrook has authored papers critical of the EPA’s handling of glyphosate herbicides, noting that the agency has given little weight to independent research regarding the actual products sold into the marketplace and used by millions of people around the world. Instead, the EPA has mostly relied on studies paid for by Monsanto and other companies selling glyphosate herbicides that found no cancer concerns.

“There is important new science to share with the jury that clarifies why and how Roundup can cause cancer,” Benbrook said this week after learning of the court ruling.

Excluding Benbrook’s testimony was an error that “was not harmless,” the appellate court said in its decision.

The EPA’s handling of Monsanto and its glyphosate products has been the subject of much scrutiny in recent years, as internal documents have revealed many questionable interactions and secretive dealings that critics say undermine the credibility of the agency’s oversight.

In 2022, a federal court found that the EPA had failed to follow established guidelines for determining cancer risk, ignored important studies, and discounted expert advice from a scientific advisory panel in its oversight of glyphosate.

You can read the rest of this story out today in The New Lede.