The length of time this story has been developing is easily forgotten. When Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018, it inherited what many analysts at the time described as a good deal. Within a year, the deal had changed as the first significant jury verdicts began to come in.

Observing it now, it seems that Bayer misjudged how obstinate American juries can be when the plaintiff is a sixty-year-old gardener with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a garage full of partially used spray bottles. The majority of what’s left will be covered by the recently proposed settlement, which was filed in Missouri earlier this year. The company has been the target of about 200,000 claims. Since 2015 alone, over 125,000 of those have been filed.

Approximately 77,000 had already been settled in two previous, independent settlements. However, new claims continue to come in: those who were diagnosed last year, those who were diagnosed the year before, and those who are just now making the connection between years of weekend yard work and a blood cancer diagnosis.

The disparity in the distribution of the funds is striking. An agricultural worker who has been sprayed for years and is diagnosed with an aggressive form of the disease before turning 60 may be eligible to receive up to $165,000. $20,000 could be awarded to a weekend homeowner with a milder variant who is in their seventies. $10,000 for someone who is 78 years of age or older.

The lawyers argue most loudly about that. Nearly 280 plaintiffs are represented by Matt Clement, who has already stated that he believes the payouts are far too small and that many of his clients will choose not to participate. The difference between what a Georgia jury awarded one plaintiff last year ($2.1 billion) and what the typical claimant will quietly accept on paper is difficult to ignore.

The Supreme Court, which is in charge of everything, is another. Monsanto v. Durnell, a case centered on a Missouri man named John Durnell who won $1.25 million after developing lymphoma as a result of years of neighborhood cannabis spraying, was agreed to be heard by the justices. FIFRA, a federal pesticide law, preempts state courts from requiring cancer warnings that the EPA never mandated, according to Bayer’s limited but profoundly significant argument.

A whole class of failure-to-warn lawsuits, not only against Roundup but also against the majority of pesticides sold in America, might simply disappear if Bayer prevails.

The company appears to have the advantage, according to investors. In contrast to the previous administration, the Trump administration has filed in Bayer’s favor. State legislation protecting pesticide producers who adhere to federal labels has already been passed in North Dakota and Georgia. By the end of 2026, Bayer might finally have the legal closure it has been seeking for almost ten years. It’s also possible that the settlement is upheld if the court makes a different decision, leaving the business vulnerable once more.

The checks continue to be sent out for the time being. Silently, one case at a time. And somewhere, a farmer is probably not even looking at the label as he loads another jug into the back of his truck.

The post The Roundup Cancer Settlement Is Still Paying Out — and Thousands of New Claims Are Still Being Filed appeared first on Creative Learning Guild.