Proving Liability in Roundup Cancer Cases

To successfully win a Roundup cancer lawsuit, plaintiffs must prove that the herbicide’s manufacturer, Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), is liable for their injuries. Establishing liability involves demonstrating that Monsanto was negligent or engaged in wrongful conduct, leading to the development of cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, in those exposed to Roundup. This article explores the legal strategies and evidence used to prove liability in these cases, offering insights into how victims can build a strong claim.

Key Elements of Proving Liability

To hold Monsanto accountable, plaintiffs must establish the following legal elements:

1. Duty of Care:

Monsanto, as the manufacturer of Roundup, had a legal duty to ensure that its product was safe for use and to warn consumers about any potential health risks. This duty of care includes conducting thorough testing, providing clear warnings, and ensuring that Roundup did not pose an unreasonable risk to users.

Example:

Like any manufacturer, Monsanto had a responsibility to provide adequate warnings if its product could cause harm. This includes warnings on the product label, in marketing materials, and in safety instructions.

2. Breach of Duty:

Plaintiffs must show that Monsanto breached its duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to protect consumers. The central claim in most Roundup cancer cases is that Monsanto either knew or should have known about the health risks associated with glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) and failed to warn users.

Example:

Internal company documents revealed during litigation have shown that Monsanto was aware of studies linking glyphosate to cancer but chose to downplay or ignore these findings. These actions are cited as evidence of a breach of duty.

3. Causation:

The most critical element in proving liability is establishing that Monsanto’s failure to warn or take other precautions directly caused the plaintiff’s cancer. This involves linking the use of Roundup to the development of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or another related cancer.

Example:

Plaintiffs often present medical records, expert testimony, and scientific studies to demonstrate that their exposure to Roundup was a significant factor in their cancer diagnosis. Experts may testify that glyphosate, particularly in the formulations used in Roundup, can cause cancer when used as directed.

4. Damages:

Finally, plaintiffs must prove that they suffered actual harm as a result of their cancer diagnosis. Damages include medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other financial and emotional losses caused by the disease.

Example:

Medical bills for cancer treatment, the inability to work due to illness, and the emotional toll of a cancer diagnosis are all factors that determine the compensation a plaintiff can seek.

Types of Evidence Used to Prove Liability

Successfully proving liability in a Roundup cancer case requires robust evidence. Here are the primary types of evidence used to support these claims:

1. Scientific Studies and Expert Testimony:

Numerous scientific studies have found a link between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Plaintiffs often rely on these studies to demonstrate causation. Additionally, expert witnesses, such as oncologists, toxicologists, and epidemiologists, play a critical role in explaining the scientific evidence and connecting glyphosate exposure to the plaintiff’s illness.

Example:

A 2019 meta-analysis reviewed several studies and found a 41% increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among individuals with significant glyphosate exposure. Experts use this and similar studies to establish that Roundup can cause cancer.

2. Internal Monsanto Documents:

Internal documents obtained during litigation have revealed that Monsanto may have known about the risks of glyphosate and actively sought to influence research and public opinion. These documents show that the company allegedly worked to suppress negative studies, ghostwrite favorable reports, and pressure regulatory agencies to downplay the risks.

Example:

In the Dewayne Johnson case, internal emails revealed that Monsanto considered ghostwriting favorable studies and had close relationships with certain regulators. This evidence played a key role in the jury’s decision to hold Monsanto liable.

3. Product Labels and Marketing Materials:

Plaintiffs argue that Monsanto failed to include adequate warnings on Roundup product labels and marketing materials. The absence of warnings about the potential cancer risk is cited as evidence of negligence.

Example:

Despite studies linking glyphosate to cancer, Roundup labels did not include warnings about these risks. Plaintiffs use this lack of warning as evidence that Monsanto did not fulfill its duty of care.

4. Plaintiff’s Medical Records and Exposure History:

Detailed medical records are essential for proving that the plaintiff’s cancer is directly linked to Roundup exposure. Additionally, documenting the history of exposure—such as how often and in what capacity the plaintiff used Roundup—helps establish a connection between the herbicide and the diagnosis.

Example:

A plaintiff who worked as a landscaper for 20 years and frequently used Roundup can present employment records and purchase receipts as evidence of consistent, long-term exposure.

5. Testimony from Witnesses:

Witnesses who can confirm the plaintiff’s use of Roundup, such as coworkers, neighbors, or family members, provide supporting testimony. Their statements help build a timeline and demonstrate the extent of exposure.

Example:

A former coworker testifies that the plaintiff regularly applied Roundup without any protective gear, reinforcing the claim that the plaintiff was heavily exposed to the herbicide.

Overcoming Defenses Raised by Monsanto

In defending against Roundup cancer claims, Monsanto has raised several arguments to avoid liability. Plaintiffs must be prepared to counter these defenses effectively:

1. Challenge to Scientific Findings:

Monsanto argues that the scientific evidence linking glyphosate to cancer is inconclusive or flawed. They often cite studies that show no connection between glyphosate and cancer, relying on research funded by the company or its affiliates.

Countering This Defense:

Plaintiffs present independent studies and expert testimony to challenge Monsanto’s claims. Courts have generally been receptive to evidence showing that glyphosate poses a risk, as seen in multiple high-profile verdicts.

2. Regulatory Approval as a Defense:

Monsanto often points to regulatory bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and their approval of glyphosate, arguing that compliance with regulatory standards should absolve the company of liability.

Countering This Defense:

Plaintiffs argue that regulatory approval does not automatically mean a product is safe, especially if evidence shows that the approval process was influenced by the company or that key risks were ignored.

3. Plaintiff’s Health and Lifestyle Factors:

Monsanto may argue that the plaintiff’s cancer was caused by other factors, such as genetics, smoking, or other environmental exposures.

Countering This Defense:

Plaintiffs provide medical evidence showing that their cancer is more likely linked to Roundup exposure, with expert witnesses testifying that other risk factors are less significant in their case.

Conclusión

Proving liability in Roundup cancer cases requires a thorough understanding of the legal elements and strong evidence demonstrating that Monsanto’s negligence led to the plaintiff’s cancer. With the right combination of scientific studies, internal company documents, and expert testimony, plaintiffs can build a compelling case that holds Monsanto accountable. If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with cancer after using Roundup, consulting an experienced Roundup cancer lawyer can help you pursue the compensation you deserve.