Bayer said in its petition that consumers should not be able to sue it under state law for failing to warn that Roundup increases cancer risk because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found no such risk and requires no such warning. In fact, it argued, federal law does not allow it to add any warning to the product beyond the EPA-approved label.

Why it matters: Bayer is a major supplier of crop protection products, including Roundup, for Canadian farmers

The company tried to make that case to the Supreme Court and was rebuffed in 2022, but a federal appeals court has since agreed with the company in a split from other appeals courts. The Supreme Court is generally more likely to take cases where federal appeals courts are divided.

A Supreme Court victory for Bayer would likely make it much more difficult for the lawsuits to continue, though it is not clear whether it would eliminate them entirely.

Friday’s petition came in the case of John Durnell, who in 2023 won a $1.25-million verdict in a St. Louis, Missouri state court. Bayer has been hit with much larger verdicts over Roundup, most recently a $2.1-billion award last month to a plaintiff in Georgia.

The company has paid about $10 billion to settle claims that Roundup, based on the herbicide glyphosate, causes cancer. About 67,000 further cases are pending, for which the group has set aside $5.9 billion in legal provisions.

CEO Bill Anderson has struggled to revive a share price that has plunged by more than 70 per cent since Bayer’s $63-billion acquisition of Monsanto in 2018 that saddled it with costly litigation and debt.

The company’s problems include the glyphosate litigation, a 2023 development setback for its most promising experimental medicine, weak agriculture markets and pressure from some investors to separate or sell businesses. Bayer plans to seek shareholder approval to raise equity capital worth close to 35 per cent of its outstanding shares over the next three years to cover possible costs of U.S. litigation.

The company has warned U.S. lawmakers it could stop selling Roundup, which is widely used by U.S. farmers, unless they can strengthen legal protection against the litigation. It has already replaced glyphosate with other ingredients in the home consumer version of Roundup.

The post Bayer renews bid for US Supreme Court to curb glyphosate cases appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Why it matters: Bayer is a major supplier of crop protection products, including Roundup, for Canadian farmers

The verdict, which Bayer said on Saturday it would appeal, is one of the largest legal settlements issued in a Roundup-related case and is the latest setback for the group, among the world’s largest seeds and pesticides makers.

Bayer has paid about $10 billion to settle disputed claims that Roundup, based on the herbicide glyphosate, causes cancer. Over 60,000 further cases are pending for which the group has set aside $5.9 billion in legal provisions.

The German pharmaceutical and biotechnology group acquired Roundup as part of its $63 billion takeover of U.S. agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018.

The Georgia verdict includes $65 million in compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive damages, according to a statement emailed to Reuters by the plaintiff’s law firms Arnold & Itkin LLP and Kline & Specter PC.

Bayer said in a statement it disagreed with the jury’s verdict, as it conflicted 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 and unconstitutional damage awards eliminated or reduced,” it said.

It said that damages in cases that have reached final judgements have been reduced 90 per cent overall compared with the original jury awards.

Earlier this month, Bayer told U.S. lawmakers it could stop selling Roundup unless they strengthened legal protection against product liability litigation, a financial analyst and person close to the matter told Reuters.

— Reporting by Riham Alkousaa

The post Bayer hit with $2 billion Roundup verdict in US state of Georgia cancer case appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Bayer has paid about $10 billion to settle disputed claims that Roundup, based on the herbicide glyphosate, causes cancer. About 67,000 further cases are pending for which the group has set aside $5.9 billion in legal provisions.

Why it matters: Roundup and other glyphosate products are key weapons in Canadian farmers’ weed-killing arsenal.

The German company has said plaintiffs should not be able to take Bayer to court by invoking U.S. state rules given the federal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly labelled the product as safe to use, as have regulators in other parts of the world.

“Without regulatory clarity (Bayer) will need to exit the business. Bayer have been clear with legislators and farmer groups on this,” analysts at brokerage Jefferies said in a note on Thursday, citing guidance Bayer’s leadership provided in a meeting.

Bayer, which acquired Roundup under the $63 billion takeover of Monsanto in 2018, said: “We are exploring every possibility to end this litigation.” It declined to comment further.

Disclosing glyphosate sales numbers for the first time, Bayer on Wednesday said the product, one of the most widely used weedkillers in U.S. field farming, generated 2.6 billion euros ($2.8 billion) in revenue last year.

“Bayer could reach a point in the future where the company is forced to discontinue the sale of the product in the United States,” a person familiar with the matter told Reuters, requesting anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

As it released fourth-quarter earnings on Wednesday, the company said it was working to “significantly contain” litigation by 2026.

It has repeatedly said it is working with farmers’ associations to lobby U.S. federal and state legislators. It is also preparing to again petition the Supreme Court for legal protection, following a failed attempt in 2022.

Bayer, however, has not previously threatened to withdraw the product from the U.S. market, although it replaced glyphosate in U.S. consumer products with different weedkilling substances.

One of the world’s largest seeds and pesticides makers, Bayer competes with Corteva, BASF and China’s Syngenta.

It is the only glyphosate producer in the United States, where the U.S. farming sector, which also imports cheaper generic glyphosate from China, relies on modified soy and corn that are resistant to its weedkilling effect.

The glyphosate litigation, which Bayer inherited from a Monsanto deal that was masterminded by Anderson’s predecessor, has weighed heavily on the stock, together with factors, including a drug development setback in 2023 and a weak agriculture markets.

Bayer said at the time of its results release on Wednesday it would internally separate the glyphosate business from the rest of the Crop Protection division.

When asked in an analyst call whether the glyphosate business could be sold, divisional head Rodrigo Santos said: “We’re going to continue to discuss in the future, evaluating all the alternatives that we have for the business. That’s always what we do”.

The post Bayer tells US it could halt Roundup weedkiller sales over legal risks appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

McDonald’s said in a lawsuit filed on Friday in Brooklyn federal court that the meatpackers, also including Cargill and National Beef Packing, collectively reduced their output to drive up industry prices since 2015.

The lawsuit is the latest to accuse the world’s largest meatpackers of violating U.S. antitrust law by coordinating on the price they paid for cattle and on slaughter volumes.

“Only colluding meatpackers would expect to benefit by reducing their prices and purchases of slaughtered cattle because they would know that their conspiracy would shield them from the dynamics of a competitive marketplace,” McDonald’s said in its lawsuit.

JBS, Tyson, Cargill and National Beef did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit on Monday. McDonald’s had no immediate comment.

The meat producers have denied any wrongdoing in related cases that have been consolidated in Minnesota federal court. The plaintiffs in those cases include BJ’s Wholesale, Sodexo, Target and Aldi.

The beef meatpackers also face lawsuits from U.S. consumers, cattle producers and others that are seeking class-action status and monetary damages in the Minnesota litigation.

Cattle producers who said they sold animals directly to the meatpackers for slaughter said they lost billions in the alleged scheme, court records show.

McDonald’s has 13,000 branded restaurants in the United States, part of its 39,000 restaurant global footprint in more than 100 countries.

McDonald’s said it was seeking unspecified monetary damages and a court to order an end to the alleged price-fixing conspiracy.

U.S. District John Tunheim in Minneapolis is overseeing the coordinated beef antitrust legal proceedings.

In the first settlement, JBS said in 2022 it would pay $52.5 million to resolve some of the purchasers’ class action claims.

The case is McDonald’s Corp v. Cargill et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 1:24-cv-07017-TAM.

For McDonald’s: Philip Iovieno Nicholas and Gravante Jr of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
For defendants: No appearances yet

The post McDonald’s sues major beef producers in US price-fixing lawsuit appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“Maple Leaf Foods has done nothing wrong here,” the company said in a Sept. 18 news release ahead of a scheduled Sept. 19 court hearing.

Earlier this month, Canada Bread alleged that Maple Leaf Foods personnel “directed and participated in certain anti-competitive conduct” that was investigated by Canada’s competition bureau and then “used Canada Bread as a shield” after Canada Bread was fined $50 million in 2023. Maple Leaf Foods was then majority owner of Canada Bread, which has been owned by Grupo Bimbo (Bimbo Canada) since 2014.

In 2023 Ontario’s Superior Court fined Canada Bread after the company pled guilty to four counts of fixing bread prices in 2007 and 2011. The allegations came to light in an industry-wide federal investigation launched in 2017 by the Competition Bureau.

Maple Leaf Foods said Canada Bread must want to embroil it into ongoing class action proceedings and added that the Ontario Superior Court rejected similar claims against Maple Leaf three years ago.

“Canada Bread is using this, and other false claims, in a transparent attempt to set itself up to try to recover damages from Maple Leaf Foods related to Canada Bread’s own decision to seek leniency from the Competition Bureau in 2017 for an alleged conspiracy that Maple Leaf Foods and others say never actually occurred,” the news release said.

“We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves against these (and other) unfounded claims,” it added.

Earlier this summer, grocery giant Loblaw (Loblaw Companies Limited) and parent company George Weston Limited announced that a $500 million settlement had been reached in a class action suit concerning their involvement in the bread price-fixing scandal. The parties named in the class action suite are Loblaw, George Weston, Canada Bread, Sobeys, Metro, Wal-Mart and Giant Tiger, according to class action firm LPC Advocats’ website.

The post Maple Leaf Foods defends against claims it used Canada Bread as a shield in price fixing investigation appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“These type of greenwashing claims are on the rise and consumers have a right to know the truth about their food choices,” said Carrie Apfel, an attorney with Earthjustice, on a Wednesday press call.

Earthjustice is representing EWG in the suit alongside the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Edelson PC, and FarmStand.

The suit was filed on Wednesday by the Washington-based Environmental Working Group (EWG) in D.C. Superior Court. Tyson did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

In 2021, Tyson said it would achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 by increasing its use of renewable energy and eliminating deforestation in its supply chain, among other steps.

The company also markets a brand of “climate-friendly” beef it says is produced with 10 per cent less emissions than conventional beef.

In its lawsuit, EWG alleges that Tyson has not presented a rigorous plan for reaching its net zero goals or details for its lower-emission beef production and is thus misleading consumers with the claims.

Tyson is one of the largest meat processing companies in the United States. The company says it produces 20 per cent of the country’s beef, pork, and chicken and that the majority of its emissions are from beef production.

Livestock production generates about 14.5 per cent of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions globally, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Cattle represent 65 per cent of those emissions.

The post Green group sues Tyson Foods for allegedly false climate claims appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

This significant sum is the largest verdict in the ongoing five-year litigation involving the weed killer. However, the legal battles are far from over. There are still more than 50,000 cases pending in the United States.

It’s important to note that out of more than 165,000 cases initially filed, over 110,000 were either dismissed or deemed unjustified by the courts. This situation underscores the complexity of the issue, and it’s unfair to solely blame the individuals pursuing legal action. The industry also bears responsibility for the glyphosate controversy.

Glyphosate, the primary component of Roundup, was patented by Monsanto in 1971 and introduced to the market in 1974. It is a widely used herbicide with broad-spectrum capabilities. Extensive use by farmers worldwide led to its widespread presence in the environment, including Canada. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a potential human carcinogen, placing it in Group 2A, the same category as red meat and very hot beverages above 65 C. This categorization ignited ongoing debates regarding glyphosate’s carcinogenic effects.

Recent studies, including a comprehensive one published in Environmental Research, shed new light on glyphosate’s environmental presence and its potential impact on human health. Consequently, the question of whether glyphosate is carcinogenic remains a subject of ongoing discussion. While numerous studies suggest strong associations between glyphosate and human diseases, as well as environmental harm, other meta-analyses suggest the risks are minimal.

Glyphosate has arguably been one of the most extensively studied chemicals globally, resulting in a plethora of research, primarily negative. Monsanto itself faced accusations of manipulating its research and results to influence governments and public opinion on the matter. The common thread among these studies is the call for more research to better understand the risks.

Nearly 50 years after Roundup’s introduction, more than 30 countries have banned glyphosate use. Various interest groups have effectively demonized glyphosate over the years, creating doubts about its safety.

After years of scientific evaluation, Health Canada claims glyphosate is safe, although many still advocate for its ban.

The latest review in suggests that epidemiological studies offer limited evidence to definitively establish glyphosate as a carcinogen. These findings align with IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen in Group 2A. Banning glyphosate would be akin to banning red meat or hot beverages above 65 C, which may seem overly dramatic.

The ongoing debate and fear surrounding glyphosate can be attributed to the biotech industry’s inadequate risk communication strategy over the years. Since 1974, the industry has primarily focused on selling to farmers and increasing agricultural yields.

Genetic engineering, reliant on herbicides like Roundup, has undoubtedly improved agricultural efficiency. However, it has also exacerbated the rural-urban divide, leaving many city dwellers without an understanding of genetic engineering. Interest groups opposing industrial agriculture have capitalized on this information gap.

Ultimately, Bayer AG, Monsanto, and other biotechnology companies have only themselves to blame for taking consumers for granted. Consumers have been served food without adequate transparency about what was happening in farmers’ fields.

Advocates who call for GM labelling are justified, as it would increase transparency in the agri-food sector and empower consumers to make informed choices.

With gene editing now permitted in Canada since last year, the industry mustn’t repeat the same mistakes. Ignoring consumers’ concerns could have financial consequences.

It’s essential to value consumers and address their questions and apprehensions to build trust in the industry and its products.

The post How industry neglect fueled a US$2.2 billion verdict appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The bill, put forward by ruling majority MP Nicole Le Peih and supported by President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist government, was approved 78 votes to 12 overnight on Monday and will now proceed to the Senate.

“This law will put an end to abusive lawsuits against farmers who do nothing but their job: feed us. It is a common-sense proposal, country-side common-sense,” Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti said on social media platform X.

French governments have long courted farmers, an influential sector that Paris ignores at its peril.

The country has a history of conflicts between former city dwellers buying country houses and then complaining about roosters crowing, dogs barking, the noise of agricultural machinery or the smell of manure.

BFM TV reported that nearly 500 farmers are currently facing lawsuits from neighbours taking issue with noise, or smells, emanating from their farms.

In 2019, in a case that caught international media attention, a court ruled that a rooster called Maurice could continue his dawn crowing despite complaints from neighbours in a village on a small island off France’s Atlantic coast.

France already has legislation, introduced in 2021, to protect the “the French countryside’s sensory heritage”, but the new law aims to give more protection to existing farms from newly arrived residents in the area.

“Proud to support those who work in our fields. Now to the Senate,” farming union FNSEA Deputy Chairman Luc Smessaert said on X.

Brittany region environmentalist Claire Desmares told local radio France Bleu that the proposed law is an “absurd and populist” measure proposed by the powerful agricultural lobby.

The post France passes law to protect farmers against neighbours’ complaints over noise and smells appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The proposed settlement in Minnesota federal court was disclosed on Friday from plaintiffs’ lawyers representing a class of businesses that bought beef for food preparation since 2015.

It is the second deal that the Brazilian beef giant and its U.S. units have struck in the case, after they agreed last year to pay US$52.5 million to grocers and other plaintiffs that make up the “direct” beef purchaser class.

The new settlement, subject to a judge’s review and approval, requires JBS to co-operate in ongoing cases against corporate defendants that have not settled, including Cargill and Tyson Foods.

“This co-operation is valuable and will afford access to transactional data, documents, witnesses, and other information without further litigation and expensive discovery — a significant class-wide benefit,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers said in their request for preliminary approval of the deal.

JBS and lawyers for the company on Monday did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. JBS denied liability as part of the settlement.

Lawyers for Cargill and Tyson and representatives from the companies either declined to comment or did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

JBS and other suppliers were sued in a series of cases alleging price-fixing in various meat markets. JBS has paid tens of millions of dollars to resolve claims from pork purchasers.

In the beef case, commercial plaintiffs including Wisconsin-founded sandwich and soup shop Erbert + Gerbert’s alleged JBS and other meat packers conspired since 2015 to fix the prices of beef.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers said the settlement was “the product of extensive and vigorous arm’s-length negotiations.”

— Mike Scarcella is a legal affairs reporter for Reuters in Washington, D.C.

The post JBS to pay US$25 million in latest beef price-fixing settlement appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

In a 3-0 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with several environmental, farmworker and food-safety advocacy groups that the EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer and threatens endangered species.

The litigation began after the EPA reauthorized the use of glyphosate in January 2020.

Groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Food Safety and the Rural Coalition, which represents farmworkers, faulted the agency for rubber-stamping glyphosate despite its alleged harms to agriculture, farmers exposed during spraying, and wildlife such as the monarch butterfly.

Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland wrote for the Pasadena, California-based appeals court that the EPA did not properly justify its findings that glyphosate did not threaten human health and was unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans. She also faulted aspects of the agency’s approval process.

Bayer’s Monsanto unit, which makes Roundup, opposed groups challenging the EPA reauthorization. Friday’s decision does not prevent people from using Roundup or similar products.

An EPA spokeswoman said the agency will review the decision.

Bayer said the EPA conducted a “rigorous assessment” of more than 40 years of science, and believes the agency will continue to conclude that glyphosate-based herbicides are safe and are not carcinogenic.

George Kimbrell, a lawyer for the Rural Coalition, in an interview called the decision “a historic victory for farmworkers, the public and endangered species.”

Bayer has faced tens of thousands of lawsuits claiming that Roundup causes cancer and other illnesses.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide soon whether to hear the German company’s appeal of a $25 million damages award to Edwin Hardeman, a Roundup user who blamed his cancer on the product.

— Jonathan Stempel is a U.S. courts correspondent for Reuters in New York.

The post U.S. EPA ordered to reassess glyphosate impact on health, environment appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.