June 24, 2020 – The maker of the deadly herbicide, Roundup – with its main ingredient ‘glyphosate’ – has reached a settlement in the US cases filed against it, topping out at $10.9 billion dollars – enough to provide a maximum of $100,000 to each of the 125,000 plaintiffs who filed claims against the maker. Yet, the amount is a “pittance” for those who have already filed suit after developing non-Hodgkins’s lymphoma after using the herbicide. As currently reported, the settlement doesn’t make clear if the legal fees for bringing the class action suit are included in the monetary award to the plaintiff’s. It that is the case, the settlement amount going to each of the plaintiff’s would most likely be reduced by a third – leaving individual plaintiffs with a maximum of $75,000 per individual plaintiff.
Even more startling, this “settlement” would provide just $1.25 billion to support any future class actions brought against the maker – further decreasing the likelihood of a class action and the ability of any plaintiff to be compensated for their injuries – especially if the product continues to be marketed without any changes to its chemistry, and if it is continued to be marketed as safe – without any warning labels informing consumers of its potential to cause harm. However, the proposed class agreement is still subject to approval by a federal judge who is overseeing the case in the Northern District of California.
Cases Already Litigated in Favor of Plaintiff’s, Go Another Round With Bayer-Monsanto on Appeal
For the plaintiffs struggle through non-Hodgkins lymphoma, those who already litigated and won in the courts – with juries finding their cancers to be causally related to their regular use of the herbicide – those plaintiffs will not be included in the class action and will need to go another round in the Appeals Court with Bayer-Monsanto. Those cases include: DeWayne Johnson – the first successful case to be argued before a jury – and a finding that the Roundup herbicide causally related to Mr. Johnson developing the deadly lymphoma. As a result of that jury seeing and weighing the evidence presented, Johnson was awarded $289 million dollars – consisting of $250 million in punitive damages and $39.25 million in compensatory damages, which was subsequently reduced by the judge.
Cases Go Forward Even With Judges Reducing Jury Awards
Even as the jury spoke loudly and clearly in the Johnson case, the judge reduced Johnson’s award down to $78.5 million – and yet, the maker Bayer-Monsanto, is continuing its appeal. Another case moving forward on appeal, is the “Pilliod” case, where both husband and wife who regularly used the herbicide developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma, which the jury found to be causally related to the use of the herbicide. In that case, the jury awarded the couple “2 billion dollars,” subject to any reduction by the judge. Another case moving forward on appeal – the Hardeman case, where the jury awarded the injured plaintiff $80 million.
It is noteworthy, the reasoning of the juries for the exceptionally high awards, was a result of their finding intentional actions, by Bayer-Monsanto, such as in the Dewayne Johnson case, where the jury found the maker to have acted with “malice or oppression” in the product liability claim, and its failure to warn. For detailed discovery information as seen by the jury, see U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) the “Monsanto” papers. Included in these “Monsanto papers” are internal company reports containing damning information that the company knew of its product’s toxicity, and tried to hide it. As a result of the “internal corporate knowledge” that was hidden by the corporation from the public, the juries repeatedly found for Plaintiff’s on the “failure to warn” claim asserted by the plaintiffs, including breach of warranty.
Duty to Warn Necessary for Informed Choice
Despite the several juries finding that the maker had a duty to warn and failed to do so, a federal judge in California just ruled that there does not need to be a warning about the product’s carcinogenicity – even though these juries have found for plaintiff’s based upon a failure to warn consumers of the deadly cancer risk posed by the use of their product. It is apparent that ‘pro’ business courts are ruling for corporate interests – despite witness testimonies that the product they bought was marketed to them as safe. And it appears in the jury verdicts that it was reasonable for plaintiffs, as well as any consumer, to rely on the touted “safety” statements made by Monsanto – that Roundup is safe to use around people and pets. In addition to the marketing, plaintiff’s made clear that if a “warning label” had been placed on the packaging, it would have put them on notice of the danger, and would have caused them to either choose another herbicide, or use “protection” when using the product. By not putting such a warning, purchasers effectively had that choice taken away.
Sad Day in America – Courts Put Corporations Over People
It is a sad day in America where the judicial system protects corporations over people, and where science is overshadowed by greed. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), found that glyphosate based herbicides are ‘probably carcinogenic‘ – yet the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) states to the contrary – despite juries weighing the evidence, and seeing corporate documents that suggest otherwise. It is a sad day in America, where American taxpayers have to fight simultaneous life and death battles: fight against Coronavirus, fight against racial injustice, fight for protective gear, and fight to protect themselves from unsafe products that government agencies are tasked with protecting them against. Products that can both kill them and devastate the environment. When the government forsakes its job as watchdog over the safety of the American people – the very people who fund its existence – the taxpayers – it demonstrates its allegiance is not to the American people – but to corporations and those within it wielding power and influence. By acts of protectionism, government enables corporate greed at the expense of its own people, making it indeed, a sad day for the American people and the nation.
~The Power of the Purse Reigns Supreme~
By its own actions, our nation demonstrates it has lost its way, and lost any semblance of greatness and decency – if it ever had it at all. Yet, despite the unbridled corporate greed and lobbying that permeate government – the people are now rising up across America. If oppressed long enough, people will eventually fight back against an unjust system – with the one powerful attribute sure to win – the “power of the purse.” From the government pushing genetically modified foods to the deadly herbicides used in farming and harvesting – people will fight back with the power of their dollars. And companies that don’t want to “listen” to the buying public, will see their products languishing on store shelves.
These cases make it clear. When people are informed, they will make better choices. And what better choice is there than to boycott companies that do not care about the safety of their products and the people who purchase them – companies that put profits over people. And for the consumers who care if the products they buy are from companies that care about them – they will find responsible companies stepping up to show the consuming public who they are. The power of the purse will reign supreme, drowning out the companies that are there to just make a quick buck – effectively schooling them in ethics and accountability that the US government: legislature, FDA & the Courts are not interested in doing.
For more information on glyphosate – the science and the law, see our program, and our previous in-depth article about the jury trials: “Roundup Weed Killer – Is it Ready for Another Trial?” Watch our programs on toxic herbicides with MIT’s Sr. Scientist, Dr. Stephanie Seneff and others on TheLegalEdition.com
Subscribe to The Legal Edition Channel on YouTube
Copyright 2020, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. All Rights Reserved.
The information contained in this article and programming is based upon the opinions of the World Health Organization and the research of the scientists and organizations around the world, and does not reflect any opinion or position by the author or The Legal Edition, and does not constitute legal advice.