The mere mention of the company’s name — Monsanto (now Bayer AG) — conjures up negative thoughts in the minds of many. Monsanto has been criticized for its aggressive pursuit of genetic modification in the development of agricultural products. The latest controversy swirling around Monsanto has resulted in thousands of lawsuits against the company for its development and manufacture of Roundup, an herbicide linked to cancer. Juries in three trials for lawsuits brought by victims of Roundup have returned massive verdicts against the company.

S T A T E O F L I T I G A T I O N :

ROUNDUP

MONSANTO: A COMPANY BUILT ON CONTROVERSY

ROUNDUP DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSIONMonsanto developed glyphosate in the early 1970s, and it was commercially marketed under the brand name Roundup in 1974. Roundup is a nonselective herbicide, meaning it will kill all species of plants — both wanted plants, such as crops and grass, and unwanted plants, like weeds. Spraying a plant with Roundup prevents protein synthesis essential to growth and causes plant functions to degrade. Ultimately, plants sprayed with Roundup die from a lack of nutrients and dehydration.

The commercial success of Roundup boomed following Monsanto’s technological advances with genetic modification. Beginning in the 1980s, Monsanto heavily invested in biotechnology. Scientists successfully modified a plant cell through biotechnology for the first time in 1983, leading to the first genetically modified crops in 1987. Through this research, Monsanto genetically engineered seeds in 1996 to produce crops that were tolerant to glyphosate, paving the way for its extensive use worldwide by permitting farmers to kill weeds but not their crops.

“Roundup Ready” seeds are now used for more than 90 percent of cotton, corn and soybeans in the United States. The prolific use of

Roundup by both commercial farmers and everyday consumers has largely been driven by this proliferation of genetically engineered crops that are specifically tailored to resist destruction by glyphosate. Roughly 250 million pounds of glyphosate is currently being sprayed on crops, private lawns, public parks, golf courses, commercial nurseries and other green spaces across the country. Independent market research projects that the global market for glyphosate could reach $12 billion per year by 2024, regardless of the health concerns being brought to light through the onslaught of current litigation. This likely explains why Bayer CropScience AG spent more than $60 billion to purchase Monsanto in 2018.

— 1 — State of Litigation / Lanier Law Firm

Monsanto was founded in 1901 in St. Louis, Missouri, when John F. Queeny began producing saccharine at one-sixth the cost ofsugar. Monsanto went on to manufacture several controversialproducts, including PCBs, industrial compounds that are nowbanned; polystyrene, the main component in Styrofoam; dioxin,a highly toxic element in Agent Orange; rBGH, the contentiousdairy-cow hormone; and DDT, a poisonous insecticide bannedin 1972. As DDT was making its exit from the market, Monsantowas developing a molecule called glyphosate, the active ingredientin Roundup.

Roughly 250 million pounds of glyphosate is currently being sprayed on crops, private lawns, public parks, golf courses, commercial nurseries and other green spaces across the country.

MONSANTO "ROUNDS UP" THE SCIENCE

CAMPAIGN TO "ROUND UP" THE IARC

For years, glyphosate was considered harmless to humans, because the metabolic pathway it inhibits is essential for plants but does not occur in mammals. A Monsanto advertising campaign once extolled Roundup as being “safer than table salt.” In 1985, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified glyphosate as having limited evidence of carcinogenicity.

A second review of glyphosate was conducted in 1991, wherein the EPA found evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans, albeit without unanimity of committee members. Independent scientific research and various studies dating back to as early as 1985, however, have linked glyphosate with cancer. Evidence suggests that Monsanto has long engaged industry front groups and experts to ghostwrite literature to support the safety of glyphosate, heavily lobbied regulators and used its power to discredit researchers whose work was not in Monsanto’s interest.

Not only has glyphosate been correlated with cancer, but peer-reviewed studies dating as far back as the early 1990s support that Roundup’s formulation, which contains more chemicals than glyphosate alone, is dangerous and disrupts cell function in humans. Monsanto’s own internal documents suggest that Monsanto was aware of these studies, knew Roundup contained additional dangerous chemicals beyond its active ingredient glyphosate and failed to fully test the safety of its product. In one email, a Monsanto toxicologist stated that Monsanto could not “say that Roundup is not a carcinogen,” because Monsanto had “not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.” Monsanto continued to rely on biased, industry-supported studies designed to protect its economic interests and promoted Roundup as safe.

In September 2014, Roundup was selected to undergo scrutiny by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Company records indicate that Monsanto’s scientists expressed concern and discussed the “vulnerability” of defending the weed killer against multiple research studies of people and animals exposed to it. Leading up to the IARC meeting that was held in March 2015, internal emails show that Monsanto predicted that the IARC would find glyphosate was “possibly” or “probably” carcinogenic. To counteract this anticipated finding, Monsanto engaged in a “preparedness” plan. This included organizing a vast public relations and lobbying campaign to perpetuate massive outrage following the IARC classification of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.

In response, Monsanto put its preparedness plan into action, calling on industry experts to blog, submit editorials and post attacks on social media to refute the findings. Industry partners that have long been

considered front groups by Monsanto critics posted scathing attacks against the IARC on their websites, and industry “opinion leaders” provided key submissions to daily newspapers on the day of the IARC ruling. Internal correspondence indicates that outside scientists published reports in their names that were ghostwritten by Monsanto and were favorable to the company.

Monsanto’s lobbying efforts seemed effective insofar as federal agency management under the new administration was concerned. In late 2017, the EPA declared that glyphosate was “not likely” to cause cancer in humans. Monsanto’s strategic intelligence and advisory firm, Hakluyt & Company, reported to the company that the Trump administration would be an ally on pesticide regulations and that Monsanto need not be concerned with any additional oversight.

— 2 — State of Litigation / Lanier Law Firm

A Monsanto advertising campaign once extolled Roundup as being "safer than table salt."“

LAWSUITS ON THE RISEWhile the federal government was turning a blind eye, the court system was offering justice. Following the IARC determination that Roundup was linked to cancer, and specifically non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a flood of lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto.

More than 10,000 cases are working through state courts, primarily in Missouri where Monsanto is based, followed by hundreds of cases in California that have been consolidated through the state’s Roundup Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings (JCCP). A smaller number of cases have been filed in Delaware and one in Montana. At least 2,000 federal suits against Monsanto have been transferred and consolidated under the Federal Multidistrict Roundup Products Liability Litigation (MDL) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

These lawsuits allege that exposure to the Roundup herbicide caused the plaintiffs or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is cancer that originates in, and can be quickly spread throughout the body by, the lymphatic system, causing the immune system to become ineffective against infections as the cancer spreads to other tissues.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits filed thus far have been homeowners and groundskeepers, people who have accounted for only a fraction of Roundup’s sales. Commercial farmers are far and away the primary users of the product; however, reporting indicates that given their reliance on Roundup and Roundup Ready seeds, they have not entered the fray in significant numbers, although that dynamic may change over time.

— 3 — State of Litigation / Lanier Law Firm

NON-HODGKIN LYMPHOMA:

Cancer that originates in, and can be quickly spread throughout the body by, the lymphatic system, causing the immune system to become ineffective against infections as the cancer spreads to other tissues.

— 4 — State of Litigation / Lanier Law Firm

1

Product LiabilityThe product liability claims asserted against Monsanto are twofold: those alleging a failure to warn consumers of dangers and those alleging design defects with the product itself. Regarding the failure-to-warn claims, plaintiffs assert that Monsanto was aware of the potential carcinogenic properties of Roundup and failed to warn consumers of the risks associated therewith. Plaintiffs further allege that not only did Monsanto fail to warn consumers, but with knowledge of the cancer risks, the company disseminated inaccurate or misleading information concerning the safety of its product. As to design-defect claims, plaintiffs argue that Roundup is inherently defective, because it entered the market as an unreasonably dangerous product, and Monsanto knew it was unreasonably dangerous, failed to sufficiently test or investigate its product, and/or downplayed the product’s risks.

NegligenceAn actionable negligence claim generally requires that a defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff that was breached and proximately caused damage or injury. In the lawsuits against Monsanto, plaintiffs assert that the company failed to exercise reasonable care in the sale of an unreasonably dangerous product, including the failure to provide adequate instructions and safety precautions to consumers. Plaintiffs further allege that the company breached its duty of care, because it knew or failed to adequately learn of the health risks associated with Roundup, including its carcinogenic properties; concealed those risks; and failed to accurately warn consumers of the potential adverse effects of its product.

Breach of Implied WarrantiesBy placing Roundup in the stream of commerce, Monsanto implicitly warranted to its foreseeable consumers that the product was of merchantable quality and safe and fit for its intended use as an herbicide. Plaintiffs contend, however, that Monsanto breached these warranties, because Roundup has dangerous propensities, and consumers could not know of the dangers, because the company failed to disclose the health risks associated with its use and/or failed to adequately test the product or concealed its dangers.

What Are the Primary Claims Against Monsanto?

BELLWETHER VERDICTS: MONSANTO IS "ROUNDED UP" IN COURT

Despite the large number of pending lawsuits in state and federal courts, only three cases have been taken to trial thus far, and in each instance, the jury returned huge verdicts against Monsanto. With the evidence presented at trial, juries have seen through Monsanto’s campaign of misinformation and influence to hold the company accountable.

These bellwether verdicts certainly signal a prolonged, uphill battle in the courts for the company. The judge in the federal MDL has already urged the parties to enter mediation.

Filed in early 2016, in a San Francisco County court, Dewayne Johnson v. Monsanto

Company was the first Roundup personal injury case taken to trial, in the summer of 2018.

Johnson was exposed to Roundup while working as a school groundskeeper, at which time he often sprayed large quantities of the herbicide. On August 10, 2018, the jury unanimously found that Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer caused Johnson’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that the company acted with malice or oppression, thus supporting punitive damages. The original damage award totaled $289 million and was later reduced by the court to $78 million. Monsanto’s appeal is currently pending.

— 5 — State of Litigation / Lanier Law Firm

The Lanier Law Firm is currently pursuing litigation and accepting referrals on behalf of individuals diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma due to the use of Roundup. The firm has won substantial compensation for its clients in a variety of high-profile personal injury cases, and in 2019, was recognized as an Elite Law Firm by The National Law Journal, which also listed the firm’s $4.69 billion verdict against Johnson & Johnson as the largest verdict of the previous year. The Lanier Law Firm has offices in Houston, New York, Los Angeles and Oklahoma City. For close to 30 years, the firm has worked tirelessly to find unique solutions to its clients’ unique needs. The firm is composed of more than 60 skilled attorneys, practicing in a broad array of areas, including business fraud, asbestos exposure, personal injury and commercial litigation. Visit www.lanierlawfirm.com.

We want to work with you.Visit lanierlawfirm.com/referrals to tell us about your case.

2 3In Edwin Hardeman v. Monsanto Company, the first test case taken to

trial out of the federal MDL consolidation, the jury returned an $80.27 million verdict against Monsanto in March 2019. Edwin Hardeman began using Roundup on his 56 acres of land in Sonoma County, California, in the 1980s. In 2015, he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The jury found that Roundup was a substantial factor in causing Hardeman’s cancer and that Monsanto’s conduct supported punitive damages. The court subsequently reduced the total award to $25.27 million, because the original $75 million punitive damage award was impermissibly high in comparison to the $5.27 million compensatory damage award.

The first of the JCCP consolidated cases, Pilliod v. Monsanto Company,

went to trial in March 2019, in Alameda County, California. Plaintiffs Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a married couple in their seventies, both have non-Hodgkin lymphoma after their regular use of Roundup starting in the 1970s. Like the other two trials, Monsanto was found liable, and its conduct was found to have been perpetrated with malice, supporting punitive damages. The jury originally returned a $2.055 billion verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. The award was subsequently reduced to $86.8 million, which the plaintiffs agreed to accept in order to avoid a new trial.