We have previously written about the experience of DeWayne Johnson who developed Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma after user Bayer’s glyphosate-based herbicide Round Up while working as a groundsman.
After careful deliberation the jury concluded that:-
- Exposure to ROUNDUP was the probable cause DeWayne Johnson’s Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
- That Monsanto (taken over by Bayer) were aware of the risk to public health, and failed to give adequate warning of those known risks
So, Dewayne Johnson was awarded compensation for his financial and non-economic losses, which were assessed to be $39 million.
However, because the jury concluded that Monsanto’s conduct amounted to willful and deliberate negligence – by suppressing evidence of an increased cancer risk – in order to protect their brand reputation and maximise profits, the jury awarded an additional $250 million in punitive damages to punish and deter that behavior.
Facing a tsunami of similar claims from other victims, in 2020 Bayer set aside $13 Billion to settle current claims against them, without conceding that Round Up’s active ingredient, glyphosate, is in fact a cancer-causing agent.
But to reduce the risk of future litigation, Bayer reformulated the Round Up sold to private consumers through retail outlets, replacing glyphosate as the active ingredient. Meanwhile, products sold to farmers and commercial growers still contain glyphosate.
However, according to the Washington Post (27 Oct 2025) emerging evidence from the ‘corn belt states’ of the American mid-west – where Round Up is commonly used to improve the farmer’s yield – the incidence cancer in young people, under 50, is steadily rising. The data shows that a young person’s (15 – 50 years old) risk of developing cancer is significantly higher if they live in the ‘corn belt’, while in other states the cancer risk is stable or declining. Although the data suggests that ‘environmental factors’ must be be at least partly responsible for the increased risk, researchers have not yet isolated the cause(s), or proved a correlation with exposure to glyphosate.
Meanwhile, Bayer asserts that there is no evidence that glyphosate is a cancer-causing agent, so there is no need to warn people of the risk. But, to out-maneuver their legal opponents Bayer now argue that:-
- After reviewing Bayer’s research, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have accepted that there in no conclusive evidence that glyphosate is a cancer-causing agent.
- The EPA have approved the product labels, that do not warn of the risk that glyphosate products may cause cancer.
So, according to Bayer’s argument, no court is competent to over-rule the scientific judgement of a Federal Agency, pre-empting any claims attempting to overturn their judgement. So, the absence of a warning on an approved label – means, according to Bayer, Courts shouldn’t consider claims based on a ‘failure to warn’ – or award punitive damages because no warning was given.
This argument might be valid if the Federal Agency’ decisions were based on best available independent research and manufacturer’s could be trusted to reveal all the information they hold about potential risks. However, the reality is that Regulation is a political hot potato – and the decision makers are subject to increasing political and commercial pressure to avoid regulations – or public statements – that might ‘harm US Business’ or alarm the public.
However, I see a bigger moral and legal challenge – Should a warning given to the farmer, who may be enriched by the product’s use, be sufficient to absolve the manufacturer of any liability for the harm caused to the general public from their ‘environmental exposure’ to a dangerous product, that is beyond their control?
Another ‘legal problem’ is deciding if a particular claimant’s cancer was caused by the increased risk due their environmental exposure – based on epidemiological studies – or is it more likely due to the ‘normal risk’ in an uncontaminated environment.
One argument that has been used historically is that –
- To show that the individual was harmed by exposure to a known risk, you must prove direct causation, or show the risk of harm – in this case getting cancer – was doubled by exposure to the hazard.
- Otherwise, it is more-likely-than-not that the individual’s cancer was due the the normal risk in an uncontaminated environment, so the individual’s claim should fail.
Although correlation may not prove causation, getting to the ‘truth’ will require statistical analysis of large quantities of data to identify any repeatable patterns – a job well suited to the application of AI. However collecting reliable data – in sufficient detail – for a meaningful analysis may be regarded by some as dangerously woke.
So, while Bayer continues to exploit scientific uncertainty to continue trading and lobbying Federal Agencies to support US Agri-Business, balancing the general population’s ‘right to health’ against the ‘wealth’ of farmers and corporate interests remains a divisive moral and ethical question.
Should those who benefit from ‘risky technology’ also bear the risks?
The learn more…
Stunell Technology is an engineering management consultancy that delivers Product Liability Training for engineers and managers who are responsible for product development, manufacturing, marketing or after-market support.
To arrange training for your team, please contact Phil Stunell
Content published on this website is not provided as Legal Advice and we strongly recommend you obtain the advice a qualified lawyer in your jurisdiction when contemplating any form of legal action.
Leave a Reply