A St. Louis jury has awarded a man who sued Monsanto over its weed killer product Roundup claiming that the substance caused him to develop non-Hodgkins Lymphoma cancer $1.25 million.
The 12-member jury agreed October 20 with plaintiff John Durnell that Monsanto had failed to adequately warn of the potential dangers of its Roundup formulation on the bottle label. Jury members absolved the company on other charges, product defect, negligence and holding Monsanto not liable for further punitive damages.
The three-week trial in the 22nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri Court was streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
The outcome of the trial was a setback for Monsanto which had rung up a successful string of victories over plaintiffs in nine Roundup lawsuits after a set of losses in California totaling almost $2.4 billion in plaintiff damages. Last month a decision by 21st St. Louis Judicial Court Judge Brian May tossed out a similar lawsuit via a directed verdict, a finding that evidence in the case was insufficient for a jury to find the company negligent and liable.
Durnell sued Monsanto alleging that Roundup caused his cancer. Diagnosed in 2020, he started using the product in 1996 killing weeds in a St. Louis neighborhood home beautification program maintaining green space for the Soulard Restoration Project. He first noticed a pain and a knot in his groin. Diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, he underwent chemotherapy treatments. His cancer currently is in remission.
Durnell’s attorney Roe Frazer asked the jury for compensation for his client for physical pain, mental suffering, grief, anxiety, loss of enjoyment of life and emotional distress.
During the run of the trial, plaintiff attorneys said glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is a toxic carcinogen. Defense attorneys countered that there was no proof it was toxic and, based on testing, there was no reason to believe it was.
Lawyers for the plaintiff relied heavily on a finding in 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that glyphosate is a “probable” carcinogen.
Attorneys for Monsanto portrayed the IARC judgement as flawed and superficial, one of many such findings (eating red meat, drinking ultra-hot beverages and working late hours were also found to be possible carcinogens).
IARC a project of the United Nations World Health Organization is not a regulatory agency like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, defense attorneys maintained.
Defense attorneys used as their major supporting argument an Agricultural Health Study conducted in 2018 funded by the National Cancer Institute. That study tracked over 50,000 farmers who used Roundup as a pesticide. Its findings concluded there was no relationship between the chemical’s use and cancer.
Both sets of attorneys called to the stand their own expert witnesses to testify and both used documents including statistical charts, study conclusions and company emails to bolster their case.
Important witnesses included Donna Farmer, a 32-year employee and toxicologist with Monsanto who served as a lead officer in making sure the product complied with EPA regulations as well as being a public spokeswoman on its alleged safety. In addition Dr. Matthew Matasar, a New York oncologist appeared for the defense as did Dr. Christian Tomasetti, an oncologist for the California-based City of Hope Cancer Center.
Speaking for the plaintiff were Dr. Richard DeGrandchamp a University of Colorado toxicologist, and Dr. Kristan Aronson, a Canadian epidemiologist.
Both sets of attorneys accused each other of “cherry picking” evidence to suit their positions and of engaging in misinformation.
As in past Roundup trials, the attorneys for Monsanto made the case that Durnell’s cancer was simply a result of cells dividing wrongly, copy errors, a natural occurrence and the kind of thing that could happen to anybody. Especially as they age.
The plaintiffs claimed glyphosate is a carcinogen but contains other toxic byproduct impurities including formaldehyde, dioxin, nitrosamines, arsenic and surfactants (a soapy substance makes the chemical cling to and absorb into a plant).
Defense attorneys claimed the byproducts were not a threat and were of the same small “trace amounts” that could be found normally in soil and water.
Michael Brown the attorney for Monsanto in making his case that no study had determined that Roundup caused NHL added that Durnell, who wore no protective equipment while spraying Roundup, had never read the directions on the bottle. They said to avoid eye and skin contact and to wash hands thoroughly after use.
Jury members evidently thought that wasn’t enough of a warning. Thus, they awarded Durnell $1.25 million in damages.
Judge Timothy Boyer presided.