Statement on Melissen

“We disagree with the jury’s verdict, as it conflicts with the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence and the consensus of regulatory bodies and their scientific assessments worldwide. We believe that we have strong arguments on appeal to get this verdict overturned and the excessive damages (ratio of punitive to compensatory damages is an unconstitutional 25:1) eliminated or reduced, including the recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Schaffner v. Monsanto, which unanimously held that the state-based failure-to-warn claims central to this case and others are expressly preempted by the federal law overseeing pesticide labeling, FIFRA. The company’s attempts to apply the Schaffner ruling in the PCCP have been denied by trial courts in Young, Melissen, and Womack, which is scheduled to go to trial in the PCCP later this month. The company is arguing in an appeal before the Superior Court in Melissen that these failures to apply Schaffner are legal errors and should be reversed.

The company has been clear that the cross-cutting state-based failure to warn claim in this and other cases in the Roundup litigation is preempted by federal law consistent with the Schaffner decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision created a circuit split within the federal courts that warrants review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The company is currently evaluating the cases which would present the best opportunity for review and has retained former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement as its Supreme Court counsel. The company will file a petition for certiorari in or before 2025, and if granted, the Supreme Court would decide the case during its 2025-2026 session. 

The company remains committed to trying cases, having secured favorable outcomes in 14 of the last 21 trials. Our track record demonstrates that we win when plaintiffs’ attorneys and their experts are not allowed to misrepresent the worldwide regulatory and scientific assessments that continue to support the products’ safety.

Damages in most past Roundup™ cases with adverse verdicts have been reduced by more than 90% overall, and the company has resolved the majority of claims filed in this litigation. While we have great sympathy for anyone who suffers a loss or injury, science proves that Roundup™ is not carcinogenic.”

Melissen, which occurred in the #1 Judicial Hellhole® for 2023-2024, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, was marred by many extraordinarily prejudicial legal and evidentiary decisions, including:

State-Based Failure to Warn Claims Are Preempted by Federal Law. The trial court erred by refusing to apply the Third Circuit’s well-reasoned decision on federal preemption under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). State courts within the Third Circuit’s jurisdiction must implement this decision on the cross-cutting state-based failure to warn claim in this and other cases in the Roundup litigation and dismiss these preempted claims.

Trial Court Erred in Time Management Prejudicing the Defense. The plaintiffs in this case took 17 days out of a 15-day trial schedule to present their case. While the company was given an opportunity to make its case, the prejudice to us was insurmountable given that Plaintiffs were given unfettered latitude and time (nearly 5 times as much time as the company) to put on their case while defendants were forced to “borrow time” and put their case on in a mere 3.5 days. 

Trial Court Erred in its Instructions to the Jury. The trial court misinformed the jury in its instructions on the causation and liability standard based on Pennsylvania Law. The proximate cause standard for product liability cases in Pennsylvania requires plaintiffs to demonstrate a particular product was the cause (and not “a cause”) of the alleged injury and would not have occurred without interaction with that product. 

Failure to Prove General and Specific Causation. Plaintiff’s only expert, Dr. Durrani, failed to establish general causation - i.e., that Roundup can cause NHL in humans to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Likewise, Dr. Durrani failed to establish specific causation - i.e., that Roundup caused Mr. Melissen’s hairy cell leukemia. Dr. Durrani offered opinions devoid of any evidence on Mr. Melissen’s absorbed dose or exposure, which the jury must have to determine causation. 

Further, the trial court allowed the jury to find liability based on protected First Amendment activities, refused to limit the evidence, and refused to properly instruct the jury on the issue.

Background

Bayer has had favorable outcomes in fourteen of the last twenty-one cases, including Clark, Stephens, Shelton, Alesi, Ferro, Gordon, Evard, McCostlin, Jones, Cloud, Meyer, Cody, Kline, Young. 

In July 2024, a judge in the Federal Court of Australia with the aid of a neutral, court-appointed scientific expert and following a scientific conclave process, found in a detailed 322-page opinion that the weight of scientific evidence does not support a link between glyphosate and NHL, and dismissed the case. 

The company is also pursuing legislative solutions at the state and federal levels with support from many others in the agricultural community that would clarify or reinforce the label uniformity provision of federal law (FIFRA) that is designed to keep labels on federally registered pesticides like Roundup consistent across the country. Without reform, the U.S. risks the availability of a crop protection tool that has consistently been found to be safe by regulatory bodies worldwide. By allowing this misapplication of the law to persist, our nation is needlessly driving up the cost of food and threatening its supply.