The case brought by Edwin Hardeman was the only one of the three Roundup lawsuits to be heard by a federal court and the first federal judgment to be appealed. In 2019, a California jury awarded the hobby gardener $5 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages. A judge later slashed the punitive award to $20 million.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco dismissed Bayer’s argument that such litigation should not go to trial because the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had determined that a cancer warning is unwarranted and improper. The pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals group had argued additionally that the verdict was contrary to scientific evidence.

Up to now, Bayer has lost all of the Roundup lawsuits heard in the US, the only country where it has been sued over the blockbuster herbicide it inherited with the 2016 acquisition of the US agribusiness powerhouse. In the five years following the Monsanto takeover, the German group has been consistently embroiled in litigation that has pressured its share price and sown discord at annual shareholder meetings.

In a statement, Bayer said it planned to “pursue all legal options, including petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to review this case.” Up to no, the EPA has backed Bayer. Whether the new EPA administrator, Michael Regan, appointed by President Joe Biden this year, will stick to the same script remains to be seen.

For some time, Bayer has been trying to stem the tide of lawsuits and reach agreement with class action plaintiffs. Here, too, the going has been rough. The group has already proposed paying $ 9.6 billion to settle 125,000 claims and is also currently working with US district judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco toward gaining approval for a complex $2 billion settlement plan to avoid future lawsuits.

In a hearing, Chhabria suggested that attaching a warning label to Roundup packaging warning users of the cancer risk would provide a defense against claims that Monsanto had failed to warn users of the risks. Bayer has expressed doubt about this argument, citing the EPA’s position.

Chhabria himself has warned that it could take some time until he has decided whether or not to approve Bayer’s settlement plan.

EU Court of Justice stands firm on neonic ban

Bayer’s agrochemicals business has not exactly enjoyed a winning streak in the courts over the past several years. In another setback for the Leverkusen-based group, the European Court of Justice has now dismissed its appeal to overturn a lower EU court's 2018 decision upholding the ban on using three neonicotinoid insecticides suspected as being a factor in bee colony deaths on certain crops. The court ordered Bayer to bear its own costs and those of other parties.

The ECJ ruling applies to three active ingredients used in insecticides, including Bayer’s imidacloprid, Takeda’s clothianidin and Syngenta's thiamethoxan. In 2013, the European Commission restricted their use on maize, rapeseed and some spring grains, while allowing them to be used on other crops, such as sugar beet.

Bayer had argued that there was insufficient new scientific knowledge to justify the restrictions. Together with Syngenta it warned that banning the insecticides would lead farmers to revert to older chemicals and spray more.

Despite the restrictions, the EU granted 206 emergency authorizations to use the products between 2013 and 2019. The UK government also allowed compliance exemptions. EU auditors said last year said that overuse of neonics could be responsible for further honeybee losses. The European Commission has proposed cutting the use of chemical crop protectants by 50% and reducing fertilizer use by 20% up to 2030.

Author: Dede Williams, Freelance Journalist