Bayer ordered to pay $2.1 billion in Roundup cancer lawsuit

Georgia jury hits Bayer with $2.1 billion verdict over roundup claims

Robert Besser
29 Mar 2025, 20:25 GMT+10

Bayer ordered to pay $2.1 billion in Roundup cancer lawsuit

A jury in Georgia has ordered Bayer, the parent company of Monsanto, to pay nearly US$2.1 billion to a man who says the weed killer Roundup gave him cancer
His lawyers say this is one of the largest verdicts yet in lawsuits against the product
The jury’s decision includes $65 million for damages and $2 billion as a punishment. John Barnes filed the lawsuit in 2021 after being diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma

NEW YORK CITY, New York: A jury in Georgia has ordered Bayer, the parent company of Monsanto, to pay nearly US$2.1 billion to a man who says the weed killer Roundup gave him cancer.

His lawyers say this is one of the largest verdicts yet in lawsuits against the product.

The jury's decision includes $65 million for damages and $2 billion as a punishment. John Barnes filed the lawsuit in 2021 after being diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. His lawyer, Kyle Findley, said the verdict will help him get the treatment he needs and expose the truth about Roundup's risks.

Bayer, which bought Monsanto in 2018, denies that Roundup causes cancer and plans to appeal. The company argues that scientific evidence and global regulators support the product's safety. However, Bayer has faced over 177,000 lawsuits and set aside $16 billion for settlements.

Roundup is commonly used on crops like corn and soybeans and is designed to work with genetically modified seeds. Some studies link its main ingredient, glyphosate, to cancer, though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it is unlikely to be harmful when used correctly.

Findley accused Monsanto of hiding evidence and misleading the public for years. His legal team has won several similar cases, including a record $2.25 billion verdict in Philadelphia in 2024. Meanwhile, Bayer is pushing for legal protections that would prevent lawsuits if its labels comply with EPA rules. Critics argue this would limit accountability.