![\"\"](\"https:\/\/toxinfreeusa.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/Bayer_Monsanto_EPA_Glyphosate_Roundup.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\nU.S. Supreme Court Delivers Blow to Bayer-Monsanto<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In the span of one week, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected two appeals by Bayer-Monsanto to overturn verdicts of previously decided Roundup-cancer lawsuits. <\/p>\n\n\n\n On Tuesday, June 21, 2022, the Supreme Court rejected Bayer\u2019s appeal to overturn the verdict of Edwin Hardeman v. Monsanto Co, in which a jury unanimously found the corporation liable for health harm caused by exposure to its Roundup herbicide during consumer use. In 2019, Edwin Hardeman v. Monsanto was the second case to go to trial. But it was the first federal Roundup-cancer lawsuit and a bellwether case for more than 1,600 other plaintiffs with lawsuits consolidated in San Francisco\u2019s Federal Court, all alleging that exposure to Monsanto\u2019s Roundup herbicide and its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The jury originally awarded Hardeman $80 million in damages, but the amount was subsequently reduced to $25 million.<\/p>\n\n\n On Monday, June 27, 2022, the Supreme Court rejected Bayer\u2019s second appeal, to overturn the verdict of Pilliod v. Monsanto Co. The case, involving husband and wife Alberta and Alva Pilliod, was the third to go to trial. Bayer lost again and was on the hook for another $2 billion, an award later reduced to $87 million.<\/p>\n\n\n By turning away both of Bayer\u2019s appeals, the Supreme Court left the lower courts\u2019 decisions in place, upholding awards to both Edwin Hardeman and Alberta and Alva Pilliod.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dewayne Johnson v. Monsanto Co, filed in California State Court, was the first-ever case to go to trial in 2018. Johnson, who prefers to be called Lee, was a school groundskeeper for the Benicia Unified School District in the San Francisco Bay Area and was required to use Monsanto\u2019s herbicides as part of his job. In 2014, Lee was diagnosed with mycosis fungoides (non-Hodgkin lymphoma with large cell transformation). A unanimous jury awarded Johnson $289 million, which was later reduced to $78 million. Bayer appealed, but in a 2020 ruling, the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District upheld the verdict, which has not been appealed to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n To date, Bayer has not paid out a single cent to their victims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bayer\u2019s petitions before the Supreme Court were intended to overturn previous Roundup-cancer judgments and to limit their future liability. Last year, Bayer said a Supreme Court ruling in its favor would \u201ceffectively and largely end\u201d Roundup-cancer litigation in the United States. The decisions by the court were a one-two punch in the gut for Bayer, while also sending their stock value down on the news, according to Reuters<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAfter years of racking up loss after loss in this case, Monsanto can no longer avoid responsibility for the unspeakable harm they have caused Alva and Alberta Pilliod. The high court\u2019s decision is further proof that Monsanto\u2019s only path in this litigation is through the trial courts, which is the way it should be,\u201d the couple\u2019s attorney Brent Wisner said in an emailed statement to Courthouse News<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Wisner will be returning to the courts for the first time since the Pilliod verdict to represent Frank Johnson on October 21. The San Diego resident claims to have developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup for six years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bayer needs to stop stalling and pay up to the unsuspecting people harmed by its carcinogenic weedkiller.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let the Roundup-cancer lawsuits continue!<\/p>\n\n\n\n 9th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals Slams EPA Approval of Glyphosate<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n It was a bad week for Bayer-Monsanto. On Friday, June 17, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with environmental nonprofits against the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Bayer-Monsanto and Big Ag lobby groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2020, the EPA issued an Interim Decision for the registration of glyphosate, the so-called \u201cactive ingredient\u201d in the weedkiller Roundup and other weedkiller brands, stating that the chemical does not pose \u201cany unreasonable risk to man or the environment.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. In the ruling<\/a>, Circuit Judge Michelle T. Friedland vacated the human-health portion of EPA\u2019s Interim Decision, stating, \u201cEPA\u2019s errors in assessing human-health risk are serious,\u201d and citing EPA\u2019s illogical and inconsistent application of the cancer guidelines the agency purported to follow. The court sent the EPA back to the drawing board to properly reassess the human health risks from glyphosate exposure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To be sure, Judge Friedland gave the EPA the benefit of the doubt. A reading of the facts within the court\u2019s opinion makes it clear that the EPA went well beyond illogic and inconsistency. The agency\u2019s registration of glyphosate was based on intentional manipulation of the process for determining human health harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court also ruled that the EPA violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in its Interim Decision to register glyphosate, despite the agency\u2019s own finding that glyphosate \u201cmay affect\u201d all ESA-listed species that experience glyphosate exposure\u2014that is, 1,795 species\u2014and is likely to adversely affect 93% of those species. The court is requiring the EPA to issue a new ecological portion of its Interim Decision by October 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cToday\u2019s decision gives voice to those who suffer from glyphosate\u2019s cancer, non-Hodgkin\u2019s lymphoma,\u201d said Amy van Saun, senior attorney with Center for Food Safety and lead counsel in the case. \u201cEPA\u2019s \u2018no cancer\u2019 risk conclusion did not stand up to scrutiny. Today is a major victory for farmworkers and others exposed to glyphosate. Imperiled wildlife also won today, as the court agreed that EPA needed to ensure the safety of endangered species before <\/em>greenlighting glyphosate.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe welcome and applaud the court on this significant decision. While it comes too late for many farmworkers and landscapers who suffer after glyphosate exposure, we are grateful for the court’s ruling, and hope that now EPA will act quickly to protect future workers from illness and disease resulting from this toxic pesticide,\u201d said Jeannie Economos, Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health Project Coordinator at the Farmworker Association of Florida, a plaintiff in the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n John Zippert, chairperson of the Rural Coalition, another plaintiff in the case, said, \u201cWe need to halt glyphosate’s devastating impact on the farmworkers and farmers who suffer the deepest consequences of exposure. This decision will hopefully hasten the transition to farming and gardening methods and practices that increase resilience, protecting our children, our planet, and all those who feed us.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the ruling, Judge Friedland used the words \u201cindolence\u201d and \u201csloth\u201d as potential characterizations of the EPA. We would characterize the EPA, particularly the Office of Pesticide Programs, as malfeasant and deceitful. In our opinion, every manager in that office should be fired. The problem is not that those managers are slow and lazy. The problem is that they are corrupt<\/a>. These individuals take taxpayer-funded paychecks while doing the bidding of toxic chemical corporations\u2014working against the very mission of the agency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We Have the Power: BOYCOTT!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n While it will take time to reform the EPA and gut the agency of the corrupt individuals that run it, collectively, we can impact the bottom line of this unethical corporation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Every dollar taken away from Bayer is a dollar less to lobby politicians, corrupt regulatory agencies, and continue developing products that harm human health and the planet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Below is a list of Bayer\u2019s consumer products. Pass the list around and ask your friends and family not to buy. Are you aware of a company that Bayer owns that isn’t on the list? Make a comment and we\u2019ll be sure to add it.<\/p>\n\n\n READ RELATED ARTICLE: Bayer-Monsanto\u2019s Sinister Seventeen: 17 Terrible and Toxic Products from Bayer and Monsanto<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n