|
 Last week's verdict ended the first trial over whether glyphosate,
the main ingredient in Roundup, causes cancer. Monsanto, which says
decades of scientific studies have shown Roundup and glyphosate are
safe, is facing about 5,000 similar lawsuits nationwide.
Bayer stock fell sharply on Monday following Friday's verdict in San
Francisco Superior Court.
Monsanto said on Monday it planned to challenge the verdict on the
grounds that the judge should have barred scientific evidence
presented by California school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson's
lawyers as insufficient.
"Plaintiffs are putting forward junk science that is not based upon
the 40 years of safe glyphosate use and studies," Scott Partridge,
Monsanto's vice president of global strategy, told Reuters. "They
attempted to color science with very emotional arguments designed to
inflame jurors."
The company also said statements by Johnson's lawyers, designed to
paint the company in a malevolent light, inappropriately influenced
the jurors.
Monsanto could have difficulty getting the verdict thrown out on
those grounds, according to some legal experts who said the judge
carefully considered whether to allow Johnson's scientific evidence
under California law and reached a defensible conclusion that the
jury should hear it.
"This is one of those difficult questions at the margins of science
and the judge found the evidence simply wasn't inadmissible," said
Lars Noah, a law professor at the University of Florida.
Johnson, 46, said in his lawsuit filed in 2016 that frequent use of
Roundup caused him to develop lymphatic cancer.
Expert testimony is highly influential in product liability cases,
and evidentiary standards exist to prevent juries from making
decisions based on theories unsupported by science.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in September 2017 concluded
a decades-long assessment of glyphosate risks and found the chemical
not likely carcinogenic to humans. However, the cancer unit of the
World Health Organization in 2015 classified glyphosate as "probably
carcinogenic to humans."
Monsanto said the plaintiff's experts should have been excluded
because although they mainly cited respected, peer-reviewed studies,
they inappropriately cherry-picked results and used unreliable
methods to support the position that glysophate causes cancer in
humans.
[to top of second column] |
But Alexandra Lahav, a law professor at the University of
Connecticut, said it was common for experts to rely on the same
studies and reach different conclusions to present to a jury during
trial.
Legal experts said a federal judge overseeing other Roundup cases
has allowed the same experts to go forward with testimony, even
though the standard in federal courts is generally thought to be
higher than in state courts.
The evidence rulings might draw the attention of higher courts, both
in California and the U.S. Supreme Court, to use the Roundup cases
as a way to clarify expert admissibility standards, other legal
experts said.
A major question for appellate courts could be whether it is enough
for an expert to simply analyze widely accepted peer-reviewed
studies to support his own opinion, or whether the expert's analysis
must also be reviewed or otherwise subject to stronger scrutiny,
said two California-based defense lawyers, who requested anonymity
citing potential conflicts of interest.
Monsanto also took issue with statements by Johnson's lawyer, Brent
Wisner, and some expert witnesses comparing Roundup to tobacco.
Wisner told jurors the company would "pop champagne corks" if the
verdict was too low.
He also said in court that a Monsanto unit made so-called Agent
Orange, a highly toxic herbicide mixture used by the U.S. military
50 years ago in the Vietnam War. The harmful impact included cancers
and birth defects.
Wisner on Monday rejected Monsanto's claims that the jury made its
decision on emotional grounds.
"This was a considerate, thoughtful and well-educated jury that
looked at the science to conclude glyphosate causes cancer," Wisner
said.
Monsanto's arguments that remarks by witnesses and lawyers inflamed
and prejudiced the jury would likely fall flat, some legal experts
said.
David Rosenberg, a professor at Harvard Law School, said
editorializing by lawyers in a courtroom needed to be truly
egregious for a judge to even consider throwing out a verdict.
"Such remarks are part of the game during trials and I can't see a
single reason why Monsanto would think an appeal would be helpful on
those grounds," Rosenberg said.
(Reporting by Tina Bellon; Editing by Anthony Lin and Grant McCool)
[© 2018 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2018 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |
