Bayer Agrees To $7.25 Billion Proposed Settlement Over Thousands of Roundup Cancer Lawsuits (apnews.com) 42
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: Agrochemical maker Bayer and attorneys for cancer patients announced a proposed $7.25 billion settlement Tuesday to resolve thousands of U.S. lawsuits alleging the company failed to warn people that its popular weedkiller Roundup could cause cancer. The proposed settlement comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments in April on Bayer's assertion that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's approval of Roundup without a cancer warning should invalidate claims filed in state courts. That case would not be affected by the proposed settlement.
But the settlement would eliminate some of the risk from an eventual Supreme Court ruling. Patients would be assured of receiving settlement money even if the Supreme Court rules in Bayer's favor. And Bayer would be protected from potentially larger costs if the high court rules against it. Germany-based Bayer, which acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, disputes the assertion that Roundup's key ingredient, glyphosate, can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma. But the company has warned that mounting legal costs are threatening its ability to continue selling the product in U.S. agricultural markets. "Litigation uncertainly has plagued the company for years, and this settlement gives the company a road to closure," Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said Tuesday. The proposed settlement could total up to $7.25 billion over 21 years and resolve most of the remaining U.S. lawsuits surrounding the cancer-related harms of Roundup. The report notes that more than 125,000 claims have been filed since 2015, and while many have already been settled, this deal aims to cover most outstanding and future claims tied to past exposure.
Individual payouts would vary widely based on exposure type, age at diagnosis, and cancer severity. Bayer can also cancel the deal if too many plaintiffs opt out.
But the settlement would eliminate some of the risk from an eventual Supreme Court ruling. Patients would be assured of receiving settlement money even if the Supreme Court rules in Bayer's favor. And Bayer would be protected from potentially larger costs if the high court rules against it. Germany-based Bayer, which acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, disputes the assertion that Roundup's key ingredient, glyphosate, can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma. But the company has warned that mounting legal costs are threatening its ability to continue selling the product in U.S. agricultural markets. "Litigation uncertainly has plagued the company for years, and this settlement gives the company a road to closure," Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said Tuesday. The proposed settlement could total up to $7.25 billion over 21 years and resolve most of the remaining U.S. lawsuits surrounding the cancer-related harms of Roundup. The report notes that more than 125,000 claims have been filed since 2015, and while many have already been settled, this deal aims to cover most outstanding and future claims tied to past exposure.
Individual payouts would vary widely based on exposure type, age at diagnosis, and cancer severity. Bayer can also cancel the deal if too many plaintiffs opt out.
I hope none of these plantiffs are in California (Score:1)
segregation and off shore companies (Score:5, Insightful)
Expect to see these multinationals to
- Incorporate a company to own the chemical or drug product in the Bahamas (you have to sue them there and not in the USA)
- Lease property, vehicles, etc. to said Bahamas company to extract the revenue and profits
- Wind down and let any companies heading for lawsuit problems go nearly bankrupt
- Have a replacement product ready to go with a newly minted Bahamas company
The net result,
- You can't sue the deep pocket company since the owner of the product is independent and in the Bahamas.
- Regulators can fine the company all they want, there are no assets to take and a 30 year pay from profits or revenue would result in the company just shutting down
- The deep pocket company gets the revenue and profits and none of the liability
- The contingency based US lawsuits won't happen as much as the lawyers know that there are no US based assets to get a hold of. Lawyers will not take the case on a contingency basis.
Longer term, large companies in general will split into many smaller companies to isolate risk, shift plants and property ownership to one company and the risks/liability to another company, ...
Venture capital will get in there and sell bonds backed by an income stream of 10% of the company revenue for 20 years to further offset risk and cash out up front.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism. Devil's work.
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
I thought Monsanto owned Roundup (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I thought Monsanto owned Roundup (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, Bayer was indeed stupid to buy Monsanto.
We Need Some Game of Thrones Justice (Score:3)
Since they say it's safe, and have acted, I believe the word is "vigorously", to conceal evidence that glyphosphate causes cancer, it would be nice if board members of Monsanto and Bayer, and their families, had it sprinkled on their food for a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Since they say it's safe, and have acted, I believe the word is "vigorously", to conceal evidence that glyphosphate causes cancer, it would be nice if board members of Monsanto and Bayer, and their families, had it sprinkled on their food for a few years.
That's not how it causes cancer. Try reading and becoming informed before posting.
Re: (Score:2)
Go fuck yourself, troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
glyphosphate causes cancer
There is not a SINGLE study that proves that glyphosate causes cancer in humans. The whole 'glyphosate cancer' is just post-truth nonsense, just from greenie hippie liberals.
Statues (Score:3)
They can't even come clean in the linked announcement- the "far less funding" of the 2020 settlement was US$10B (US$19B in 2026 dollars) and has already gone out the door. If they put $19B toward the same problem that the current settlement addresses in the next four years, there'd be *way* more money paid to class claimants.
Re: (Score:3)
There's an even larger elephant in the room, but the courts don't want to see it. Monsanto's "seed piracy" claims hinged on the "impossibility" of breeding a roundup ready canola without their gene splicing tricks. Years later, farmers did exactly that. Other farmers in South America did the same with coca and so the DEA provided them with years of weed control and better yields.
Then weeds were discovered on road sides that had Monsantos' gene in them. The weeds were relatives of canola and the gene had jum
Re: (Score:2)
There have been multiple approaches. One was selective breeding that actually lead to another mechanism for resistance. Another was cross breeding with roundup ready canola to transfer the gene into a new line.
Both put the lie to Monsantos' that any round-up resistance in Canola was necessarily replanting their seed.
If you can get it to cross breed, then it can cross breed due to pollen blown from a nearby field, as happened with closely related weeds along roads.
So yes, they were wrong. Quite possibly know
Re: Statues (Score:2)
As for crossbreeding the "wild" gene, Canada's highest court dealt with that directly and found in Monsanto's favor in that case on the basis of what Canadian patent law actually protects. You can dislike that, sure, but it's no more deserving of scare quotes than my home mortgage interest tax deduction.
Re: (Score:2)
The question of willfulness certainly comes up though, since it can obviously happen accidentally. The possibility of other mechanisms means that simply demonstrated resistance is no longer sufficient to show infringement.
It is kind of funny to think that wildly growing weeds contain a patented gene that makes them damned hard to get rid of.
Astounding! (Score:4, Informative)
Bayer still sells Roundup!
But yet they are paying 7 Billion dollars to cancer patients as compensation for the damage Roundup causes. And still they sell it
What is this? The cost of doing business ?
Re:Astounding! (Score:5, Informative)
>"Bayer still sells Roundup! But yet they are paying 7 Billion dollars to cancer patients as compensation for the damage Roundup causes. And still they sell it. W hat is this? The cost of doing business ?"
When used properly/carefully, it can be very safe. For example, millions of people use it occasionally to weed flowerbeds, driveways, etc. They use a small sprayer and have extremely limited exposure. The chemical that hits the ground is quickly inactivated. It is effective, convenient, useful, and affordable.....
The problem is when it is used on an industrial scale- spraying/dousing countless acres of entire fields with huge foggers/sprayers, gallons per second (this is now very common with Round-up resistant food crop seeds and planting). Or commercial lawn-care, using it all day, every day. Workers have large exposure levels for long amounts of time and often can't be bothered to avoid skin contact, washing hands, etc.
There are a ton of very useful chemicals that can be dangerous. It doesn't mean they should be banned or not sold. But they should come with very clear warnings and training on how and when they should be used, what PPE should be used (if any), and how to treat accidental improper exposure.
Re: (Score:2)
Those non-industrial uses you mention usually aren't glyphosate based roundup formulations.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you say that?
I just looked at the spray bottle of weed killer I bought last summer: "Roundup Total Weedkiller" - active ingredient "7.2 g/L of glyphosate as a ready to use solution".
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/... [msu.edu]
Is Roundup For Lawns a completely separate product? I understood it as a category of Roundup.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Is Roundup For Lawns a completely separate product? I understood it as a category of Roundup."
Their main product is a foliage killer. You don't use that ON your lawn, it would kill it. You use it AROUND the lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Something about Roundup articles brings out all the willfully ignorant commenters that think then know how this shit works.
Re: (Score:2)
Safe? Yeah, right! (Score:1)
That's probably why they all wear hazmat suits when applying this and other things.
It's KILLING PEOPLE AND THE PLANET. FOR PROFIT.
Good deal? You decide.
Re: (Score:2)
>"That's probably why they all wear hazmat suits when applying this and other things."
They are obviously NOT wearing "hazmat suits" when applying it. If they were, they would not get cancer from it. Duh. And there is no need for a hazmat suit when applying it with most methods (because none would get on you).
>"It's KILLING PEOPLE AND THE PLANET. FOR PROFIT."
Most everything is "for profit", that is what allows the economy to work. Do you work for free? And Roundup doesn't "kill the planet". When
Re: (Score:2)
When used properly/carefully, it can be very safe.
It can be safe for humans, but not for bees [pan-europe.info]. I've seen people out spraying it on flowering plants poking up through sidewalks. Hey assholes, do you want to have a future or not? Guess not.
Re: (Score:2)
Thankfully, I rarely see it used on flowering plants.
Re: (Score:2)
"When used properly/carefully, it can be very safe."
125,000 claims filed since 2015 say otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
>"125,000 claims filed since 2015 say otherwise."
So you assert all those 125,000 claims are people who did use it properly/carefully (following the manufacturers warnings and instructions) and also have valid claims? I think it is very unlikely.
Now, if there are any that have proven causal association with the product AND the warnings/instructions were incorrect or not present at the time they were using the product.... then more power to them!
Re: (Score:2)
Bayer still sells Roundup!
But yet they are paying 7 Billion dollars to cancer patients as compensation for the damage Roundup causes. And still they sell it
What is this? The cost of doing business ?
Never seeing past the current quarter.
By the time developing countries start enforcing laws that make companies responsible for the products they sell, the current board will have collected their bonuses and retired away to their private islands protected from anyone who might possibly seek revenge (or government looking for justice).
Re: (Score:2)
Gasoline causes cancer also. Can you believe they're still selling that! Have you hear about bleach and what that can do to someone? And they're still selling it! Do you know what happens when you open up AA batteries and smear the contents on yourself? And they still sell them.
all these executives should be charged and tried (Score:3)
and then jailed for cheating lying and stealing but since our legal system is completely corrupt , that will never happen, welcome to classism, corporatocracy and corruption