Statement on Young

“The jury’s verdict in favor of the Company marks the 14th favorable outcome in the last 20 trials and validates the Company’s strategy of taking cases to trial based on strong scientific and regulatory evidence. The verdict makes clear that the plaintiff failed to prove that Roundup™ was the cause of the injuries alleged in this case, consistent with the scientific evidence and the consensus of regulatory bodies and their scientific assessments worldwide. While we have great sympathy for anyone who suffers a loss or injury, the science proves that Roundup™ is not carcinogenic.

This verdict follows the favorable ruling from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Schaffner v. Monsanto, which unanimously held that the state-based failure-to-warn claims central to these cases are expressly preempted by the federal law, since the U.S. EPA has repeatedly concluded the product does not cause cancer and approved the product label without any such warning. The Company is actively taking steps to apply the Schaffner ruling to other Roundup™ cases and looks forward to presenting its arguments, as fully embraced by the Third Circuit, at trial courts, appellate courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Additionally, outside the courtroom, we will continue supporting legislation at the state and federal level alongside hundreds of agricultural organizations to ensure that any pesticide reviewed and registered by the U.S. EPA – and sold under a label consistent with the EPA’s determinations – is sufficient to satisfy requirements for health and safety warnings. Without legislative certainty, the litigation industry will continue to target crop protection tools that have been deemed safe by experts at the U.S. EPA.

We continue to stand fully behind the safety of Roundup™ products – critical tools that farmers rely on to produce affordable food and feed the world."