Premium
Monsanto's Roundup verdicts portend liability for some pesticide health damages
Author(s) -
Centner Terence J.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
agronomy journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.752
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1435-0645
pISSN - 0002-1962
DOI - 10.1002/agj2.20366
Subject(s) - punitive damages , damages , business , product liability , liability , plaintiff , product (mathematics) , safer , appeal , compensation (psychology) , law , political science , finance , computer security , psychology , geometry , mathematics , computer science , psychoanalysis
Three California juries have found that Monsanto should be liable for millions of dollars in non‐economic losses to pesticide users and punitive damages, although the verdicts are on appeal. The plaintiffs in the lawsuits claimed Monsanto was negligent in failing to provide training on how to use Roundup and for not providing adequate warnings about the product's dangers. The punitive damage awards resulted from jurors finding that the defendant had engaged in malice, oppression, or fraud. In June 2020, Monsanto's owner Bayer reached an agreement to resolve approximately 125,000 Roundup product liability claims for US$10.1 billion. The verdicts and the proffered settlement suggest that pesticide products that unduly impair human health are not acceptable under American liability principles. Manufacturers need to design products that are reasonably safe and convey sufficient warning information to minimize damages to users and property. The placement of damage costs on product manufacturers is intended to encourage the development of safer pesticide products and the development of alternative non‐chemical pest‐control measures.