Monsanto Wins in Philadelphia's Roundup Mass Tort

Philadelphia, PABayer’s Monsanto had a good September. A Philadelphia jury found that, although Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller was defective, it did not cause plaintiff Ryan Young's non-Hodgkin lymphoma. It determined that Young did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that Roundup was the cause of his cancer. This is the fifth Monsanto Roundup lawsuit verdict in Philadelphia and the second win for the agrochemical company since trials began here about a year ago.

The Young v. Monsanto case was tried before Judge Angelo J. Foglietta of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. “We are disappointed for our client, Mr. Young. The jury determined Roundup did not cause Mr. Young's cancer; however, the jury did send a message to Monsanto that Roundup is defective and that Monsanto acted with malice and with reckless indifference to the interests of others," Young’s attorney told Law360.

The first three trials were wins for plaintiffs. The first trial in December 2023 resulted in a verdict of $175 million, the second $3.5 million and the fourth was a whopping $2.25 billion, later reduced to $404 million. Taking into consideration the two Monsanto wins, the average of these verdicts is about $194.17 million. Plaintiffs’ verdicts still outnumber defense verdicts in the Philadelphia Roundup mass tort but taking into consideration trials in the national litigation, Monsanto is ahead. The Young verdict is Monsanto's 14th victory out of the last 20 Roundup lawsuits that have gone to trial in state and federal courts nationwide.

And the company is having another shot at balancing the scales in the Philadelphia Roundup trials with the Melissen v. Monsanto case, which is now underway – despite Monsanto asking the Superior Court to stay the litigation and respond to how the Third Circuit's Schaffner v. Monsanto ruling applies to the Philadelphia Roundup lawsuits.

Bayer and Monsanto Arguments

Although Bayer and Monsanto are ahead, the company is not about to let down its guard. It has argued in numerous courts that federal laws prohibited them from adding cancer warning labels to Roundup products, because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must approve warning labels for U.S. pesticide products under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The EPA approved Roundup labels that did not include cancer warnings, and the agency did not require Bayer and Monsanto to provide information about the risk of using glyphosate, Round-up’s active ingredient and classified as carcinogenic (except by the federal government) and its link to non-Hodgkin lymphoma or other cancers.

As well, FIFRA requires health warnings on pesticide labels to match those approved by the EPA, so the court’s reasoning is that the state law’s requirement to include a cancer warning conflicts with federal regulations and is therefore pre-empted by federal law. But several judges rejected Bayer’s argument that state court failure to warn lawsuits should be pre-empted.

And over the past year Bayer has lobbied Congress to advance legislation that could protect the biotech giant from shelling out billions of dollars in lawsuits. And Bayer intends to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve contradictory rulings on Roundup cases pre-empted by federal law.

Further, Bayer and Monsanto said they are removing glyphosate from its Roundup consumer products, but will keep the active ingredient in its recipe for large agricultural users.

If Bayer cannot convince the Supreme Court to take its side, attorneys predict the company will continue to face many more Roundup lawsuits and for many years.