Bayer’s Legal Setback in Carson v. Monsanto
In a recent development, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld its decision in Carson v. Monsanto, declining to reconsider a February ruling. This decision dealt a blow to Bayer’s efforts to defend against claims related to Roundup.
The court’s decision centered on the argument that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) did not preempt a Georgia plaintiff’s claim that Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, failed to adequately warn consumers about the health risks associated with Roundup.
Bayer had hoped to leverage this case as part of its broader strategy, known as the “Five Point Plan,” to defend against Roundup lawsuits. One key aspect of this plan was to secure a favorable ruling in Carson, with the aim of creating a circuit split that might prompt the Supreme Court to take up the appeal. However, the court’s decision dashed Bayer’s hopes of this favorable outcome.
Despite Bayer’s arguments that FIFRA preempts failure-to-warn claims, the court’s ruling indicated that this stance was not convincing to anyone beyond Bayer’s legal team. As a result, Bayer’s prospects for using FIFRA as a shield against litigation appear increasingly dim.
This latest setback underscores the ongoing challenges Bayer faces in navigating the legal landscape surrounding Roundup and highlights the complexities involved in its efforts to defend against mounting lawsuits
