Roundup

Roundup Lawsuit — Glyphosate Herbicide & Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Roundup, Monsanto’s blockbuster herbicide, has caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in farmers, landscapers, and consumers with significant exposure. Lawyers from Trial Lawyers United represent individuals diagnosed with NHL and related B-cell lymphomas who used or were exposed to Roundup.

What is Roundup?

Roundup is a herbicide containing glyphosate as its active ingredient, produced by Monsanto (acquired by Bayer in 2018). Glyphosate was patented as an herbicide in 1974 and marketed as a broad-spectrum, non-selective weed killer. Roundup became the world’s most widely used herbicide: applied to crops, used by landscapers and homeowners, and present in many food products. The product is often described as safe for human health. However, independent scientific research contradicts this marketing message.

IARC Determination: Glyphosate as a Probable Human Carcinogen

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’ (Group 2A). This classification was based on:

• Strong epidemiological evidence in agricultural workers showing elevated NHL risk.
• Experimental evidence of carcinogenicity in animal models.
• Mechanistic evidence suggesting how glyphosate damages DNA.

The IARC classification does not guarantee liability in court, but it represents the judgment of the world’s foremost cancer research organization.

Epidemiological Evidence: Glyphosate and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

• Meta-analyses of occupational cohorts show approximately 41% higher NHL risk in individuals with regular glyphosate exposure compared to unexposed populations.
• Exposure-response relationship: Risk increases with duration and intensity of exposure.
• Agricultural populations: Farmers, farm workers, and applicators show the highest measured exposures.
• Landscaping and grounds maintenance: Occupational exposure through job-related herbicide application.
• Residential exposure: Homeowners using Roundup for weed control.

Monsanto’s Misconduct: Evidence of Fraud and Negligence

Internal Monsanto documents produced in litigation reveal a pattern of deception:

• Ghostwritten studies: Monsanto funded research then presented it as independent science, concealing its financial interest.
• Regulatory capture: Monsanto lobbied EPA and other agencies to downplay glyphosate risks.
• Discrediting scientists: Monsanto attacked and attempted to discredit independent researchers publishing evidence of glyphosate toxicity.
• Suppressed internal research: Studies showing potential health risks were not disclosed to regulators or the public.
• Marketing deception: Promoted glyphosate as safe while aware of scientific evidence of carcinogenic potential.

Who May Qualify for a Roundup Claim?

• Farmers with long-term Roundup application in crop production (especially corn, soy, and canola).
• Landscapers, groundskeepers, and grounds maintenance workers with occupational herbicide application.
• Farm workers and agricultural laborers with field exposure.
• Licensed pesticide applicators using Roundup professionally.
• Home gardeners and homeowners with significant, repeated residential Roundup use.
• People living near treated agricultural fields with direct or drift exposure.
• All must have a documented NHL or related B-cell lymphoma diagnosis.

Cancers Associated with Glyphosate Exposure

Roundup litigation encompasses multiple B-cell lymphomas with the same presumed mechanism:

• Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL): Broad category of lymphoid malignancies.
• Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): Aggressive subtype.
• Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL): B-cell malignancy affecting blood and bone marrow.
• Multiple myeloma: Plasma cell malignancy.
• Small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL): Indolent subtype.

MDL 2741: Roundup Litigation Consolidated in Northern California

Thousands of Roundup cases are consolidated in Multi-District Litigation (MDL) No. 2741 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This MDL includes consolidated discovery, expert testimony, and bellwether trials to establish causation and damages.

Key Verdicts: Juries Have Found for Plaintiffs

Multiple bellwether trials have resulted in jury verdicts awarding substantial damages to Roundup plaintiffs. While specific award amounts vary by jurisdiction and individual circumstances, these verdicts establish that juries recognize the link between Roundup exposure and NHL and are willing to hold Monsanto/Bayer accountable. We encourage you to discuss case value and verdict outcomes during your free consultation.

Evidence Needed to Support Your Claim

• Documentation of Roundup exposure: receipts, application records, work history, expert reconstruction of exposure.
• Medical records: NHL diagnosis, pathology reports, staging documents, treatment records.
• Temporal relationship: diagnosis within reasonable latency period after exposure.
• Occupational or residential history establishing opportunity for exposure.

Frequently Asked Questions

I used Roundup at home. Can I file a claim?

Yes, if you used Roundup frequently over an extended period and developed NHL. We assess residential cases on a case-by-case basis, looking at frequency of use, whether protective equipment was worn, and timing relative to diagnosis.

Does EPA approval of glyphosate mean I cannot sue?

No. Regulatory approval does not shield manufacturers from liability for injuries or for fraud in obtaining that approval. We will examine Monsanto’s conduct before the EPA, including potentially misleading submissions about glyphosate safety.

What if I was exposed decades ago?

The statute of limitations begins when you discovered (or reasonably should have discovered) that your NHL was caused by Roundup. Even if exposure was decades ago, your claim may not be time-barred. We evaluate tolling and timely filing.

Do I need to prove Monsanto knew glyphosate causes cancer?

We must prove that Monsanto knew (or should have known) of the carcinogenic risk and failed to warn. Internal documents and scientific evidence from the time of exposure can establish knowledge. We do not need to prove intentional wrongdoing, only negligence or breach of warranty.