A federal jury ordered Monsanto Wednesday to pay over $ 80 million in damages to a man in California whose cancer would have been caused in part by the use of the famous roundup weedkiller

The six members of the jury felt that Monsanto's liability should be incurred because of Monsanto's inability to include a label on his product, warning that the weed killer could cause cancer.

The verdict in the United States District Court in San Francisco marks a milestone in the ongoing public debate about the health effects of Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, the most widely used weed killer in the world. Monsanto is currently defending itself against thousands of similar claims.

The plaintiff, Edwin Hardeman, 70, used Roundup to control weeds and poisoned oak on his property for 26 years. In 2015, he learned he had non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The following year, after the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization declared glyphosate a probable carcinogen, Mr. Hardeman sued Monsanto.

Wednesday's verdict ended the second of two phases of the test. Last week, the jury made an initial verdict that the weed killer was an "important factor" in Mr. Hardeman's cancer. The jury then began its deliberations Tuesday afternoon on whether Monsanto had demonstrated negligence and should be held responsible.

To determine whether Monsanto was liable, the jury awarded Mr. Hardeman $ 75 million in punitive damages, Jennifer Moore, one of his lawyers, said in a telephone interview. About $ 5 million was also allocated for Mr. Hardeman's past and future suffering, as well as more than $ 200,000 for medical expenses, said Moore.

Moore stated that Monsanto had continuously ignored scientific studies showing the adverse effects of Roundup on health.

"The evidence is overwhelming that Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma," she said. "And despite that, Monsanto continues to deny it."

According to a statement by Bayer, who had acquired Monsanto last year, she announced that the company would appeal the verdict of the jury.

"We are disappointed with the jury's decision, but this verdict does not change the weight of more than four decades of deep science and the conclusions of regulators around the world who support the safety of our herbicide-based herbicides. glyphosate and that they are not carcinogenic, "said the statement.

In December 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (Environmental Protection Agency) released a draft Human health risk assessment indicating that glyphosate was probably not carcinogenic to humans.

During the course of the legal proceedings, the legal team of Dr. Hardeman has presented expert testimony and research that Roundup is causing mutations in human cells and that human populations exposed to Roundup are more likely to develop non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

[194590] 02] Statement of Bayer stated that she thought that the jury was probably divided on the scientific evidence presented in the case, which would have been indicated by the fact that the jurors had taken more than four days to pronounce on the verdict last week.

The case decided last year, a California jury concluded that Monsanto had not warned a school gardener of Roundup-related cancer risks. The jury ordered Monsanto to pay $ 289 million in damages, but a judge later reduced the payment to about $ 80 million. Monsanto is also appealing this verdict.

"Two different jurors ruled that Roundup was at the origin of an individual's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma," said Ms. Moore, "and that Monsanto should be punished for his conduct. »