CARLSBAD, Calif. – A California jury has awarded a man $332 million in a lawsuit against Monsanto Co., alleging that his cancer was caused by the company’s Roundup weedkiller. The ruling was made by a San Diego Superior Court jury in favor of Mike Dennis, a resident of Carlsbad who was diagnosed with a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2020.
Dennis claimed that his illness was directly linked to the glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. Although he has been in remission for nearly three years after undergoing treatment, there is currently no cure for his condition.
The jury found Monsanto, which is now a subsidiary of pharmaceutical and biotech giant Bayer, responsible for failing to provide adequate warnings about the risks associated with Roundup. However, the jurors also determined that the product design was not defective and the company was not negligent.
In the lawsuit, Dennis was awarded $7 million in compensatory damages along with $325 million in punitive damages. Bayer, in response to the verdict, stated that it believes the ruling is unfounded and plans to appeal. The company asserts that there were legal and evidentiary errors made during the trial.
Bayer acquired Monsanto for $63 billion in 2018 and has been grappling with numerous claims and lawsuits related to Roundup. In an effort to address these issues, the company announced in 2020 that it would allocate up to $10.9 billion to settle approximately 125,000 filed and unfiled claims.
The verdict signifies the ongoing battle between plaintiffs who believe Roundup contributed to their cancer and Bayer’s consistent defense of the product’s safety. The outcome of this case may have significant implications for future lawsuits and regulatory actions against Roundup.
In conclusion, a California jury has awarded $332 million to a man who claimed that using Roundup caused his cancer. While Monsanto was found at fault for failing to provide adequate warnings, the jury ruled in favor of the company on other counts. Bayer, the current owner of Monsanto, intends to appeal the verdict and argues that there were errors in the trial. The outcome of this case could have broader implications for the legal and regulatory scrutiny surrounding Roundup.