{"id":30286,"date":"2021-11-30T00:01:23","date_gmt":"2021-11-30T04:01:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=30286"},"modified":"2021-11-30T19:03:01","modified_gmt":"2021-11-30T23:03:01","slug":"ca-supreme-court-upholds-87m-award-in-glyphosate-damage-lawsuit-bayer-monsanto-challenge-fails","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2021\/11\/ca-supreme-court-upholds-87m-award-in-glyphosate-damage-lawsuit-bayer-monsanto-challenge-fails\/","title":{"rendered":"CA Supreme Court Upholds $87M Award in Glyphosate Damage Lawsuit, Bayer\/Monsanto Challenge Fails"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, November 30, 2021)\u00a0The chronicle of developments in the glyphosate saga has just grown longer: the California Supreme Court has rejected a request by Bayer AG<\/a> for review of the August 2021 First District Court of Appeal (San Francisco) ruling<\/a>, for the plaintiffs, that Monsanto knowingly marketed a product \u2014 Roundup \u2014 whose active ingredient (glyphosate) could be dangerous. The $87 million in damages awarded to the plaintiffs in the litigation, Alberta and Alva Pilliod, has thus survived Bayer\u2019s challenge. This highest state court decision racks up another loss for Bayer (which now owns the Monsanto \u201cRoundup\u201d brand) \u2014 despite its dogged insistence, throughout multiple lawsuits (with many more still in the pipeline), that glyphosate is safe. Beyond Pesticides has covered the glyphosate saga extensively; see its litigation archives for multiple articles on glyphosate lawsuits<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

Glyphosate<\/a> has been the subject of a great deal of public, advocacy, and regulatory attention, as well as the target of thousands of lawsuits \u2014 particularly since the\u00a02015 declaration by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) that the compound is a likely human carcinogen<\/a>. In June 2020, facing approximately 125,000 suits for Roundup\u2019s role in cancer outcomes, Bayer announced a $10 billion settlement<\/a> to resolve roughly 75% of current and potential future litigation; claimants who signed on to the settlement were to receive compensation and were not to pursue any additional legal action.<\/p>\r\n

That said, roughly 30,000 complainants ultimately did not sign on to the settlement, so the queue of potential lawsuits is still potentially enormous. Seeing the writing on the wall, Bayer tried for a second settlement (of roughly $2 billion) to handle any future claims, but in 2021, a U.S. District Court judge (for the Northern District of California) rejected<\/a> Bayer\u2019s settlement proposal<\/a>, saying that it was inadequate for future victims diagnosed with cancer after using the herbicide.<\/p>\r\n

Still, Bayer has never acknowledged any harm caused by glyphosate. Indeed, the company responded<\/a> to the California Supreme Court\u2019s decision with this: \u201cWe continue to stand strongly behind the safety of Roundup, a position supported by assessments of expert regulators worldwide as well as the overwhelming weight of four decades of extensive science.\u201d Fast forward to late July 2021, when Bayer announced its plan<\/a> to end sales of its glyphosate-based herbicides (including its flagship product, Roundup) in the\u00a0domestic U.S.\u00a0residential lawn and garden market\u00a0in 2023.<\/p>\r\n

At the same time, it also announced its allocation of $4.5 billion to meet potential long-term \u201cexposure\u201d (i.e., financial liability resulting from lawsuits) through litigation brought by people who would suffer harms in the future. Bayer noted<\/a> that, in lieu of glyphosate for its residential lawn and garden market products, it plans to change to herbicide formulations that \u201crely on alternative active ingredients\u201d\u00a0in order\u00a0to\u00a0“manage litigation risk and not because of any safety concerns.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

Lest the announcement generate too much<\/em> excitement (welcome as the move is), Beyond Pesticides noted<\/a> that: (1) this still leaves Roundup on the market for agricultural food production \u2014 where glyphosate gets the heaviest use \u2014 and particularly, for use with genetically engineered crops; and (2) what will replace glyphosate in the company\u2019s herbicide formulations is not yet clear, but the residential herbicide market will likely shift to other toxic weed killers to replace glyphosate uses. There is an opportunity, and compelling reason, for members of the public to change their lawn and garden purchasing practices, and for and communities to transition to organic land management practices<\/a>, which are not dependent on the application of toxic compounds. (See Beyond Pesticides\u2019 Health Effects of 30 Most Commonly Used Pesticides<\/a>.)<\/p>\r\n

The Pilliods brought suit<\/a> against the company in 2019 after both developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), claiming that their exposures to the Roundup herbicide over decades of use on their properties were responsible. Theirs was the third prominent Roundup \u201ccancer\u201d case<\/a> to go to trial and result in big wins for plaintiffs. The award in the Pilliod\u2019s case was originally $2.055 billion; the judge later reduced the verdict to $86.7 million on the basis<\/a> that \u201cthe ratios of punitive to compensatory damages as awarded by the jury (27 to 1 for Alberta and 54 to 1 for Alva) were unconstitutionally large.\u201d The judge in the case wrote<\/a> that Monsanto had demonstrated a \u201cwillful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

The law firm that represented the Pilliods (Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman) noted, in a press release on the California Supreme Court\u2019s ruling rejecting Bayer\u2019s request for review, that the couple had their case expedited to trial due to their advanced ages and cancer diagnoses. Brent Wisner<\/a>, co-lead attorney in the case, commented: \u201cThis is not even remotely surprising. It\u2019s not clear how many times Monsanto needs to lose before it stops making frivolous appeals.\u00a0The Pilliod verdict was based on solid science and unanimous law.\u00a0They need to stop using the appeals process to deny paying this family its judgment.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

Mr. Wisner has served on the trial teams for all three of the initial, high-profile Monsanto trials:
\r\n\u2022 that of Dewayne Johnson<\/a>, who developed NHL through his groundskeeping work and was awarded a staggering $289 million by the jury in his 2018 lawsuit ($39 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages, later reduced by the judge to $39 million for each, for a total of $78 million)<\/p>\r\n