Case Summary Involving a Chemicals Expert Witness

by

 

Introduction

In the recent case of Monsanto Company v. Hardeman, No. 19-16636 (9th Cir. 2023), the testimony of a
Chemicals Expert Witness played a pivotal role. This case revolved around claims that Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup, caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the plaintiff, Edwin Hardeman.

Background of the Case

Edwin Hardeman used Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide manufactured by Monsanto, for over two decades on his property. In 2015, he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of cancer. Hardeman filed a lawsuit against Monsanto, alleging that the company knew about the risks associated with glyphosate but failed to warn consumers. Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, contended that Roundup was safe when used as directed and that Hardeman’s cancer was unrelated to his use of their product.

Role of the Chemicals Expert Witness

Dr. Christopher Portier, a renowned toxicologist and former Director of the U.S. National Center for Environmental Health, was brought in as the Chemicals Expert Witness. Dr. Portier’s extensive background includes over 30 years of experience in environmental health and toxicology. His role in this case included several key tasks:

  • Reviewing Scientific Studies: Dr. Portier analyzed numerous epidemiological studies and toxicological data to assess the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate.
  • Evaluating Regulatory Reviews: He reviewed assessments by regulatory bodies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.
  • Providing Expert Testimony: Dr. Portier presented his findings in court, explaining the link between glyphosate exposure and cancer, and critiquing Monsanto’s internal research and safety evaluations.

Key Findings and Impact on the Case

Dr. Portier’s expert analysis led to several critical findings:

  • Carcinogenic Potential: He provided evidence suggesting that glyphosate and its formulations could induce cancer in humans, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
  • Regulatory Gaps: Dr. Portier highlighted discrepancies in Monsanto’s internal studies and how they were presented to regulatory agencies, contrasting them with independent research findings.
  • Exposure Assessment: His evaluation demonstrated that Hardeman’s exposure levels to glyphosate were significant enough to increase his risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

These findings were crucial in persuading the jury to rule in favor of the plaintiff. Dr. Portier’s testimony provided a clear, scientific explanation of the risks associated with glyphosate, which helped the jury understand the extent of Monsanto’s negligence in failing to warn users of these dangers.

Conclusion

In Monsanto Company v. Hardeman, the involvement of a Chemicals Expert Witness was essential in addressing the complex scientific issues surrounding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate. Dr. Christopher Portier’s detailed analysis and expert testimony clarified the potential health risks and provided critical evidence that led to a favorable outcome for the plaintiff. This case underscores the importance of expert witnesses in legal proceedings involving complex chemical and toxicological evidence.