Judge Puts the Brakes on Proposed Bayer Roundup Settlement

Bayer Roundup settlement stalled by judge.

The proposed $10 billion settlement between the makers of Roundup and roughly 95,000 consumers who filed class action lawsuits over claims the weed killer causes cancer is facing serious opposition from the judge overseeing the matter.

Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco issued an order July 6 saying he is “skeptical of the propriety and fairness of the proposed settlement” and is “inclined to deny” it. The judge took issue with the settlement’s approach to limiting future claims and to the creation of a panel of experts who would be empowered to decide whether Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate, causes cancer, something scientists around the world have been working for decades to determine.

If the panel agrees glyphosate causes cancer, Roundup’s parent company, Bayer, will be barred from arguing otherwise in the future, under the terms of the proposal. If the group decides it doesn’t cause cancer, plaintiffs in future cases will likewise be prevented from arguing the opposite.

A hearing on the Bayer Roundup settlement is scheduled to take place July 24. Bayer said it would consider the judge’s concerns, a report by Courthouse News Service said.

Roundup Suspected of Posing Risk of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Consumers and scientists have speculated for years about possible links between the use of herbicides containing glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, and instances of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In April 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency doubled down on its position that glyphosate is safe, issuing a statement that said, based on its research, the chemical poses no risk and “is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

Yet the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer research division of the World Health Organization, in 2015 classified glyphosate as ” probably carcinogenic to humans” based on what it called “limited evidence” of cancer in people and “sufficient evidence” of cancer in study animals, Scientific American magazine reported.

Suspicions Led to Many Lawsuits

Bayer – the German pharmaceutical conglomerate that purchased Roundup’s manufacturer, Monsanto, two years ago – is facings tens of thousands of lawsuits over the herbicide. In addition to the class action lawsuits the Bayer Roundup settlement would dispense with, another 30,000 or so cases are ongoing.

Three other lawsuits against Bayer/Monsanto have gone to trial in the last two years and resulted in significant jury awards – ranging from $80 million to $2 billion – all of which are under appeal.

Bayer Roundup settlement Overview

Bayer has been negotiating with lawyers in the 95,000 cases involved in the proposed settlement since 2019. The two sides reached a tentative agreement in June. The bulk of the $10 billion in settlement funds would go to the plaintiffs in the existing cases, but $1.25 billion would be set aside to handle future claims from Roundup customers who might develop health problems, the Detroit News reported.

Part of that portion of the settlement would pay to assemble and independent panel and have it investigate whether glyphosate, in fact, causes cancer.

After reviewing the proposed Bayer Roundup settlement, the judge voiced concerns it would limit the rights of future plaintiffs. The settlement, Chhabria wrote, “is designed to resolve all future claims—either by Roundup users who have developed cancer but have not yet sued, or by Roundup users who have not yet developed cancer at all.” It is the forward reaching part of the settlement that requires the judge’s approval.

Chhabria said he is also concerned all potential members of the combined class action lawsuit haven’t had enough time to review the proposed settlement and decide whether to opt in or argue against it. The judge also said he is unsure it would be lawful to empower the proposed expert panel with decision making authority that is typically reserved for judges and juries. And given the constantly evolving methods of scientific research and study, he wondered if it would be reasonable to “lock in a decision from a panel of scientists for all future cases” when future research might prove them wrong.