Roundup Cancer Lawsuit News

Monsanto's Attorneys Point to Studies Paid For By The Company Itself

Monsanto's best defense against the mountain of evidence piling up proving Roundup herbicide is carcinogenic is the results of scientific studies they paid for and are thus rendered meaningless

Thursday, April 11, 2019 - Company lawyers sometimes play fast and loose with the facts and never faster or looser than when they write an interpretation of a scientific study aimed at their company's flagship product. If you think about it there, if the company paid for and controlled the results of the study there is no possible way that a study that casts doubt on a product safety could ever see the light of day and only the positive interpretations of the study would be released to the media. Take, for example, the multitude of scientific studies that Monsanto lawyers point to when they defend glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, as being "safe enough to drink by the glassful." The studies that are conducted are paid for either directly or indirectly by Monsanto and conducted for the express objective of providing a positive outcome supporting glyphosate's safety. According to, "... it is Bayer and Monsanto's argument, or position, that the science is on their side, that the weight of scientific evidence shows no cancer risk, no carcinogenicity connection to its glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup. But the evidence tells us otherwise." Monsanto Roundup cancer attorneys representing families and individuals in the US offer a free consultation before filing a claim.

Carry Gilliam has written a book about not only the mountain of evidence that is growing that proves glyphosate is carcinogenic, but also about Monsanto's activities in trying to persuade government agencies and the media that the opposite is true. Gilliam claims that most if not all of the science that Monsanto points to when claiming glyphosate is safe were actually studies that were paid for by Monsanto itself. Gilliam thinks that it is the real evidence, real enough to convince the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to conclude that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic", in combination with Monsanto's data manipulation that convinced two juries to date to award plaintiffs a combined $160 million in damages. Juries seem intent on punishing Monsanto for their dishonesty and negligence in failing to warn consumers to take precautions before using the product. In the second trial that was decided against Monsanto, a Federal judge divided the trial in two allowing only scientific evidence as to glyphosate's poisonous nature to be heard by the jury. If the jury decided against Monsanto, only then would evidence of Monsanto's ghostwriting and bribery be presented to the jury by the plaintiffs.

At the core of Gilliam's thesis on Monsanto's study manipulations is that all of the studies that Monsanto points to are limited to glyphosate and none include the cocktail of cancer the company cooked up when brewing Roundup herbicide. According to Gilliam, "the products on the store shelves are not glyphosate only; they include surfactants. And scientists around the world who have studied the actual formulated products have said that the way that these surfactants interact with glyphosate make it much more toxic than glyphosate by itself."

More Recent Roundup Cancer Lawsuit News:

Lawyers for Roundup Cancer Lawsuits

Attorneys handling Roundup cancer lawsuits for leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma offer free, no-obligation case review for individuals and families who believe they may have grounds to file a Roundup cancer lawsuit. Working on a contingency basis, these attorneys are committed to never charging legal fees unless they win compensation in your Roundup cancer lawsuit. The product liability litigators handling Roundup claims at the Onder Law Firm have a strong track record of success in representing families harmed by dangerous drugs and consumer products.