A July 24th hearing has been set to consider aspects of the Bayer AG Roundup ® settlement.  At issue is the class of future litigants with approximately 30,000 claims, alleging that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Bayer Roundup ®, was responsible for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.  The future-claims aspect of the ever-expanding glyphosate case was resolved during a year of negotiations that developed a plan to fund cancer patients in financial need. The settlement conditions offended many plaintiff attorneys who have yet to try cases on behalf of their clients and their pockets.

The entire glyphosate debacle is reminiscent of litigation over asbestos that extended over decades.  In the cases of mesothelioma and pulmonary asbestosis, there is a clear epidemiologic and clinical relationship between exposure and outcome.  The same cannot be said for non-Hodgkin lymphoma where there is little evidence that the compound is carcinogenetic other than a retracted and widely disputed monograph produced by the IARC. The duration of the latent period between exposure and clinical outcome represents the legal commonality between mesothelioma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, even if exposure  and outcome can be established. 

A similar problem relating to estabishing a pool to compensate future cases was the subject of the concussion settlement in 2014 between the National Football League and players, many of whom may develop cognitive impairment or other neurologic conditions as a result of head injuries sustained in the sport.