Chemicals giant Bayer AG announced on Aug. 16 it would ask the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court ruling that upheld damages to a customer blaming his cancer on Roundup, a glyphosate-based weed-killer that has been on the market since the 1970s, in a move aimed at stemming a potential wave of cancer-related lawsuits against it.
Bayer reached a settlement deal in principle with plaintiffs last year but failed to secure court approval for a separate agreement on how to handle future cases, Reuters reports.
Monsanto, based in Creve Coeur, Missouri, was purchased and absorbed in 2018 by Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, a multinational pharmaceutical and life sciences company based in Leverkusen, Germany, for $63 billion.
Cancer patient Edwin Hardeman is a Roundup user in California who was awarded $25 million in damages against the company.
The appeal came after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected on May 14 the company’s appeal of the verdict in favor of Hardeman.
Bayer said in its petition to the Supreme Court that claims that Roundup causes cancer in humans aren’t scientifically proven.
“The Ninth Circuit’s errors mean that a company can be severely punished for marketing a product without a cancer warning when the near-universal scientific and regulatory consensus is that the product does not cause cancer, and the responsible federal agency has forbidden such a warning,” the company said in the court filing.
In addition to its use in gardening and groundskeeping, glyphosate also is widely used by farmers in the United States and Brazil on crops genetically engineered to withstand its herbicidal effect.
In 2015, glyphosate was deemed “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization.
In the petition, Bayer stated that the EPA has authorized Roundup for sale repeatedly without including a label with a cancer warning and “recently informed pesticide registrants that including a cancer warning on the labeling of a glyphosate-based pesticide would render it ‘misbranded’ in violation of federal law.”
The case at hand “is one of thousands across the country in which individuals have nonetheless alleged that petitioner violated a state-law duty to warn that exposure to Roundup could cause cancer.”