Bayer-Anhörung: Monsanto fordert von US-Gericht Genehmigung des „Roundup“-Vergleichs

In the U.S. lawsuit surrounding the weed killer Roundup, a Missouri federal court examined Bayer's proposed class-action settlement of $7.25 billion during a hearing on Monday. Monsanto, the company's subsidiary, urged the judge to approve the proposed settlement. The agricultural and pharmaceutical giant explained that there was no alternative route to resolve the legal dispute.

The agreement aims to settle thousands of lawsuits alleging cancer risks from the glyphosate-containing product. An immediate decision was not anticipated. Judge Timothy Boyer had already provisionally approved the settlement in March. The hearing in St. Louis was also expected to include critics. Some plaintiff attorneys argue that the sum is too low and that the agreement disadvantages their clients.

Supporters, however, see the settlement as the best way to provide guaranteed compensation. The plan provides that Bayer would pay up to $7.25 billion over a maximum period of 21 years. Affected individuals would receive between $10,000 and $165,000 depending on the severity of the illness, age at diagnosis, and type of use. Whether many plaintiffs opt out of the settlement remains unclear according to the company.

The hearing was recently postponed. Bayer and the plaintiffs' attorneys requested more time to process requests to withdraw withdrawal declarations, which stemmed from a significant legal victory for Bayer late June: The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that federal law takes precedence over state laws regarding warnings on pesticides.

Therefore, the judges dismissed thousands of U.S. lawsuits of legal ground. Bayer maintained that there were no sufficient evidence for claims beyond this. Bayer always rejected accusations regarding the company's 2018 acquisition of Monsanto, the U.S. seed and glyphosate developer, for $63 billion. Although a $10 billion settlement had been agreed upon in 2020 to settle most of the pending cases at that time, an agreement on future disease cases had failed.

Bayer had always rejected the allegations and referenced assessments by regulatory bodies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which classified the substance as not carcinogenic. However, plaintiffs base their claims on the World Health Organization's cancer research agency, which evaluated the substance as "probably carcinogenic" in 2015.