Monsanto, makers of the controversial herbicide Roundup, has asked that the multidistrict litigation pending against the company be tossed in its request for summary judgment. The lawsuits currently pending in the multidistrict litigation allege that Roundup caused cancer in the plaintiffs, in particular non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

Monsanto claimed that the testimony provided by the Plaintiffs’ experts should not be admissible because the testimony failed to follow the guidelines set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Daubert Standard which governs the admissibility of evidence supplied by scientific experts.

Specifically, Monsanto said that the evidence provided by the experts was derived from results-driven methods that were not peer-reviewed or published. The expert testimony stated that indeed the Roundup cancer risk was present and could affect individuals who were exposed to the harmful chemical.

Lawsuits in the multidistrict litigation state that non-Hodgkins lymphoma developed in the plaintiffs after they were exposed to glyphosate, the main chemical in Roundup. Monsanto has continually stated that decades of research studies have found that there is no Roundup cancer risk, that little glyphosate actually becomes absorbed in the human body, and that humans do not possess the shikimate pathway that the herbicide targets to kill plants.

However, what has been proposed by others is that the glyphosate can kill the healthy flora in a patient’s gut, and the immune system is largely governed by the gut and beneficial bacteria that reside there. Other mechanisms of action have also been considered in describing the link between glyphosate and the Roundup cancer risk.

Monsanto’s request for summary judgment stated that the experts who provided testimony failed to consider the results of them most reliable epidemiological studies and instead chose to focus on unreliable case-control studies in support of its position that glyphosate poses a Roundup cancer risk that led to the development of non-Hodgkins lymphoma in the affected plaintiffs.

Monsanto also stated that the research used by the experts centered around rodent-based models and not human models, making the results of these studies irrelevant. The company also stated that a Swedish study cited by the experts suffered from methodological flaws by its design, and any results from the study could not be considered accurate.

Lawsuits in the Monsanto multidistrict litigation state that glyphosate is classified as probably carcinogenic to humans based on the IARC Working Group information that was released to the public in July 2015. The IARC is the International Agency for Research On Cancer, a division of the World Health Organization (WHO).

Currently, California has passed legislation that will require Monsanto (now acquired by Bayer) to label Roundup as a possible carcinogen. Monsanto is fighting this classification and continues to maintain that the claims of a Roundup cancer risk are flawed, and that the IARC classification is flawed as well.

Monsanto is fighting against claims of Roundup cancer risk on multiple fronts as more consumers become aware of the potential link.

The Roundup Cancer Risk MDL is In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 3:16-md-02741, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

If you or a loved one developed cancer after using Roundup as a farm worker or home gardener, you may have a legal claim. Legal migrant farm workers may also seek help. Learn more by filling out the form on this page for a FREE case evaluation.

Learn More