Roundup Litigation: How We Challenge Bayer’s Legal Defenses
For thousands of people across the country, a diagnosis of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL) came as a shock. For many of them, the link to their diagnosis was found in a product they had used for years in their gardens and on their farms: Roundup. The active ingredient, glyphosate, has been the subject of fierce debate and extensive litigation.
As lawsuits against Bayer (which acquired Monsanto) continue to move through the courts, the company has deployed a series of sophisticated legal defenses to avoid liability. Understanding these arguments is crucial for anyone involved in or considering a lawsuit. At Walch Law, we are not just watching these developments; we are actively countering these defenses to secure justice for our clients.
Here is a breakdown of the primary legal arguments Bayer is using in court and how we are fighting back.
The “Science Is Unsettled” Defense
Bayer’s most fundamental argument attacks the core of the plaintiff’s case: causation. They argue that there is no definitive scientific consensus proving that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.
Bayer’s Argument
Bayer relies heavily on studies funded by the agricultural industry and certain regulatory reviews, such as those by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which have historically stated that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. They argue that because the EPA has approved the product for sale, it must be safe. They frequently point to large-scale epidemiological studies that they claim show no statistical link between Roundup use and cancer rates.
How We Challenge It
We counter this by presenting a mountain of independent scientific evidence.
- IARC Classification: We rely on the assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization. In 2015, IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on rigorous review of peer-reviewed studies.
- The “Monsanto Papers”: Through discovery in previous trials, plaintiffs’ attorneys have unearthed internal company emails—dubbed the “Monsanto Papers.” These documents suggest that Monsanto may have ghostwritten safety studies, influenced regulatory agencies, and actively worked to discredit independent scientists who raised alarm bells. We use these documents to show that the company’s “science” is biased and unreliable.
- Expert Testimony: We work with world-class oncologists, epidemiologists, and toxicologists who testify to the biological mechanisms by which glyphosate damages DNA and leads to cancer. This expert testimony directly links the chemical exposure to the specific type of cancer our clients are suffering from.
The Federal Preemption Argument
This is a complex legal defense that Bayer has tried to use to get cases dismissed before they even reach a jury.
Bayer’s Argument
Bayer argues that because the EPA approved the Roundup label without a cancer warning, federal law “preempts” (or overrides) state laws that would require such a warning. Essentially, they claim they cannot be sued for failing to warn consumers about cancer risks because the federal government told them they didn’t have to (and, at times, told them they couldn’t). They argue that complying with state failure-to-warn laws would make it impossible to comply with federal labeling regulations.
How We Challenge It
The courts have largely rejected this argument, and we continue to fight it vigorously.
- Supreme Court Rulings: The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Bayer’s appeals on this issue, leaving lower court rulings in place that favor plaintiffs.
- State Rights: We argue that state laws exist to protect citizens from dangerous products and that federal regulations set a minimum standard, not a ceiling. Just because the EPA didn’t require a warning doesn’t absolve the manufacturer of their duty to warn consumers about known risks.
- New Information: We argue that the EPA’s approval was based on incomplete data provided by Monsanto. If the agency had been given the full picture—including the internal concerns about genotoxicity—the labeling requirements might have been different. Therefore, the “impossibility” defense falls flat because the company had the power to change the label or provide better data.
The “User Negligence” Defense
When they cannot deny the science or use procedural loopholes, Bayer often tries to shift the blame to the victim.
Bayer’s Argument
Defense attorneys may argue that the plaintiff used the product incorrectly. They might claim you didn’t wear the proper protective gear (like gloves or long sleeves), that you used more than the recommended amount, or that you mixed it improperly. They attempt to paint the picture that your exposure was your own fault, not the result of a dangerous product.
How We Challenge It
We dismantle this victim-blaming tactic by focusing on the reality of how the product was marketed and used.
- Marketing vs. Reality: We show advertisements where Roundup users were depicted wearing shorts and t-shirts, implying that extensive protective gear wasn’t necessary. If the company marketed the product as safe enough to use in casual clothing, they cannot later blame a user for doing exactly that.
- Inadequate Warnings: The core of the lawsuit is “failure to warn.” If the label didn’t explicitly state that Roundup could cause cancer, a reasonable person wouldn’t know they needed to take extreme precautions. You cannot be negligent for failing to protect yourself against a danger you were told didn’t exist.
- Foreseeable Use: Product liability law holds manufacturers responsible for “foreseeable misuse.” It is entirely foreseeable that a home gardener might get some spray on their skin. A safe product shouldn’t cause cancer from accidental, minor contact that is common during normal use.
The “Alternative Causes” Defense
Finally, Bayer attempts to attribute the plaintiff’s cancer to anything but Roundup.
Bayer’s Argument
Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma can be caused by various factors, including genetics, age, obesity, or other environmental exposures. Bayer’s legal team will comb through your medical history to find any other potential cause. They might argue, “It wasn’t the Roundup; it was simply bad luck or your family history.”
How We Challenge It
This is where specific causation comes into play.
- Differential Diagnosis: Our medical experts use a process called “differential diagnosis.” They methodically rule out other potential causes based on your specific medical history and lifestyle. By eliminating other factors, we strengthen the conclusion that Roundup was the substantial contributing factor.
- Exposure History: We build a detailed timeline of your exposure. The more you used the product—days per year, over how many years—the stronger the link. We demonstrate a “dose-response” relationship, showing that your heavy exposure correlates with your diagnosis.
Why You Need a Fighter in Your Corner
Bayer has billions of dollars and an army of lawyers dedicated to denying these claims. They are betting that they can wear plaintiffs down with complex motions and scientific disputes. But they are losing. Juries across the country have seen through these defenses and awarded billions in damages to victims.
At Walch Law, we know their playbook. We know how to counter their arguments with hard evidence and compelling legal strategy. If you are fighting a battle against a giant corporation, you need a legal team that isn’t intimidated by their size or their tactics.
Contact Walch Law for a Free Consultation
If you or a loved one used Roundup and developed Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma or another related cancer, you may have a valid claim for significant compensation. Do not let Bayer’s legal maneuvering discourage you.
Contact Walch Law today for a free, no-obligation consultation. We will review your case, explain your rights, and fight tirelessly to overcome Bayer’s defenses and get you the justice you deserve.