Case Number: CACE-21-002871 Division: 08
`Filing # 121181866 E-Filed 02/10/2021 04:04:57 PM
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE17 TH
`JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
`BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
`
`CASE NO.:
`
`RICHARD WYZIK and
`ZINA WYZIK,his wife,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`VS.
`
`MONSANTO COMPANY,a foreign for-profit
`Corporation;
`MARGATE BLVD HARDWARESTORE,INC.,
`a Florida for-profit corporation; and
`HOMEDEPOTU:.S.A., INC., a foreign for-profit
`corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`THE FERRARO LAWFIRM,600 BRICKELL AVENUE, 38™ FLOOR, MIAMLFL 33131 TEL (305) 375-0111 FAX (305) 379-6222
`
`*** FTLED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 02/10/2021 04:04:55 PM.****
`
`

`

`TABLE OF
`
`TENT
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 000.00... occcecccccccecccccccecccceceee cece ceenseeeceessseeeesees 1
`
`I.
`
`Il.
`
`Tl.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`INTRODUCTION 000. ooccec cece cece cecene cece ceeaeeeceseaeeecesssssesesessaeeeceensseeseesssaeeeseessseeeeesssees 2
`
`THE PARTIES... cccccc cece cece cc cccescce cece essesecesseeecessaseeceessssesesessaeeeceesseseceesssaeeeesessseeeeesssees 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs o.oo... cece cecce cece ceecceceeceecesceececeecesseeeesseecesseeensseceesseeceeeeesseeeessseeessseeess 3
`
`Defendants 2.0.2.2... cece cccccceecccceesceceeseecesseecesseecesseeeesseecesseeeesseecesseeeeeeeesseeessseeessseeess 4
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2.00000... ccccccccccccccccccceccncce cee eesecesessaeeeceeseeecesessaeeessesseeeeeesssees 6
`
`NATUREOF THE ACTION 0000000... coccccccccccccccccccec cece cece seee cece eeeeceeeseeececessaeeeseensseeeeesssseeeesees 9
`
`FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CAUSESOF ACTION.0.00.0.0..coccccecccccecccccceeeeeceeeeeteees 10
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`
`H.
`
`Plaintiff’s Use and Exposure to Roundup................cccccccceccceeeeeeseceseceeseeesseesseeeees 10
`The Discovery of Glyphosate and Development of Roundup...................::0:+ 12
`Registration of Herbicides under Federal Law .000.......0.ccccecceccccceceeeseceeeeeeeeeenseeees 13
`The Importance of Roundup to Monsanto’s Market DominanceProfits.............. 15
`Monsanto’s False Representations Regarding the Safety of Roundup.................. 15
`Classifications and Assessments of Glyphosate ..............cccceceesceeceeeeceeeseeeseeeseees 19
`Other Earlier Findings about Glyphosate’s Dangers to Human Health and Release
`Patterns ooo... cece ceecceceeccecesneecesececesneecesceesesceesaceesesneecseeesseeesseceesseeesseeesseeeeseeers 22
`
`Recent Worldwide Bans on Glyphosate/Roundup ...............ccccceeecceesceeseeeseeseeeees 23
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION 0.0... ..cccccccccccccccceccccccce cece cece eececeseeesececessaeeeceesesecessssseeessestseeeeessnees 24
`
`COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE OF MONSANTO COMPANY ...0ooooccccccsccesceeceesceeceeeeeeseeeeeeeenseenees 24
`
`COUNTII - STRICT LIABILITY OF MONSANTO COMPANY (Design Defect).................. 29
`COUNTII - STRICT LIABILITY OF MONSANTO COMPANY (Failure to Warn).............. 33
`
`COUNTIV - FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT AGAINST MONSANTO COMPANY ....... 37
`
`
`
`COUNT V - NEGLIGENCE OF MARGATE HARDWARE.....oo..ooccccccecccccceceeccceeetececeeeseeeeeeees 40
`
`COUNTVI - STRICT LIABILITY OF MARGATE HARDWARE (Failure to Warn).............. 43
`
`COUNTVII - NEGLIGENCE OF HOME DEPOT... 0.0 .ccccccccceccccccecccecccesnececeensececeessseeeesees 47
`
`COUNTVIII - STRICT LIABILITY OF HOME DEPOT(Failure to Warn)... 50
`
`COUNTIX - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM ON BEHALF OF ZINA WYZIK.....00000..cccceceseteeees 53
`
`VU.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 000.cc cece cccceee cece cesses eeceeeeececeesesseeecesssseeeeensses 54
`
`

`

`Plaintiffs, RICHARD WYZIK and ZINA WYZIK, his wife, by and through the
`
`undersigned counsel and pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby sue the
`
`Defendants, MONSANTO COMPANY,a foreign for-profit corporation, MARGATE BLVD
`
`HARDWARE STORE,INC., a Florida for-profit corporation, and HOME DEPOT U:S.A., INC.,
`
`a foreign for-profit corporation, for damagesandallege as follows.
`
`1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for the significant damages sustained by
`
`RICHARD WYZIK as a result of using Roundup®, an unreasonably dangerous and defective
`
`product. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ claims involve the Defendants’ negligent and wrongful
`
`conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
`
`marketing, distribution, supply and/or sale of Roundup® containing the active ingredient
`
`glyphosate (hereinafter referred to as “Roundup”or “Roundup products”), by each ofthe above-
`
`named Defendants, individually or through their predecessors or subsidiaries.
`
`B.
`
`Roundup is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
`
`' “Roundup”refers to all formulations of Roundup products, including, but not limited to,
`Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide,
`Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup
`Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed
`Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide,
`Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Prodry Herbicide, Roundup Promax, Roundup Quik Stik
`Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Quikpro Herbicide, Roundup Rainfast Concentrate Weed &
`Grass Killer, Roundup Rainfast Super Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use
`Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer 1 Plus Weed Preventer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed &
`Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed and Grass Killer 2, Roundup Ultra Dry, Roundup
`Ultra Herbicide, Roundup Ultramax, Roundup VM Herbicide, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer
`Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate Plus, Roundup Weed & Grasskiller
`Ready-to-Use Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass
`Killer! Ready-to-Use, Roundup WSD Water Soluble Dry Herbicide Deploy Dry Herbicide, or
`any other formulation containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
`
`2
`
`

`

`marketed, distributed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the
`
`dangers associated withits use.
`
`C.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of RICHARD WYZIK’s exposure to Roundup he
`
`developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. ZINA WYZIK,his wife, has also suffered a significant loss
`
`of consortium as a result of her husband’s diagnosis, treatment and ongoing injuries.
`
`I.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`A.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`Plaintiff RICHARD WYZIK has been a resident of Broward County, Florida since
`
`1967, and is otherwise suijuris.
`
`5.
`
`At all times material, Plaintiff RICHARD WYZIK was exposed to,
`
`ingested,
`
`inhaled, had dermal contact with and/or otherwise used Roundup products that were designed,
`
`manufactured, sold, distributed, and/or supplied by each of the above-named Defendants,
`
`individually or through their predecessors or subsidiaries.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff RICHARD WYZIK wasexposedto the Defendants’ Roundup products in
`
`the intended manner, without significant change in the products’ condition.
`
`7.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of RICHARD WYZIK’s exposure to, ingestion,
`
`inhalation, contact with and/or use of Roundup products, he was diagnosed with non- Hodgkin’s
`
`lymphomaonor about January 2021.
`
`8.
`
`Asa result of his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma diagnosis, RICHARD WYZIK has
`
`been and will continue to undergo extensive and debilitating chemotherapy and radiation
`
`treatment.
`
`In addition, he will continually have to undergo medical monitoring. His injuries are
`
`permanent and continuing in nature andarelife-threatening.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff ZINA WYZIK,at all times material, was a resident of Broward County,
`
`

`

`Florida since 1975, and is otherwise suijuris.
`
`10.
`
`At all times material, ZINA WYZIK wasand is the wife of RICHARD WYZIK
`
`and has suffered loss of her husband’s consortium.
`
`B.
`
`Defendants
`
`11.
`
`‘At all times material, Defendant, MONSANTO COMPANY (“MONSANTO”),
`
`wasandis a for-profit corporation organized and existing underthe laws of the State of Delaware,
`
`having its principal place of business located at 800 North Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, Missouri
`
`63167.
`
`12.
`
`MONSANTO,atall times material, was authorized to conduct and is conducting
`
`business throughout the State of Florida, including, but not limited to, conducting business in
`
`Broward County, Florida. Service of process on Defendant, MONSANTO,is predicated on
`
`Fla. Stat. § 48.081 and Fla. Stat. § 48.091.
`
`13.
`
`Atall times material, MONSANTOhashad and continues to have substantial and
`
`not isolated contacts with Florida and is subject to the jurisdiction of Florida.
`
`14.—At all times material, MONSANTOwasthe entity that discovered the herbicidal
`
`properties of glyphosate and the manufacturer of Roundup products containing glyphosate as the
`
`active ingredient.
`
`15.
`
`Atall times material, and while committing the acts alleged herein, each and every
`
`managing agent, agent, representative and/ or employee of MONSANTO,was working within the
`
`course and scope of said agency, representation and/or employment with the knowledge, consent,
`
`ratification, and authorization of the Defendantandits directors, officers and/or managing agents.
`
`

`

`16.
`
`At all times material, Defendant, MARGATE BLVD HARDWARESTORE,INC.,
`
`(“MARGATE HARDWARE’), wasandis a Florida for-profit corporation with its principal place
`
`of business located in 5843 Margate Blvd, Margate, FL 33063.
`
`17.
`
`MARGATE HARDWARE,atall times material, was authorized to conduct and is
`
`conducting business throughout the State of Florida, including, but not limited to, conducting
`
`business in Broward County, Florida.
`
`Service of process on Defendant, MARGATE
`
`HARDWARE,is predicated on Fla. Stat. § 48.081 and Fla. Stat. § 48.091.
`
`18.
`
`MARGATE HARDWAREhasbeenselling lawn care products, including weed
`
`killers, in the state of Florida since at least 2017.
`
`19.
`
`At all
`
`times material, MARGATE HARDWARE, was engaged in thesale,
`
`distribution and/or supply of Roundup products containing glyphosate in Broward County,
`
`Florida.”
`
`20.
`
`‘At all times material, and while committing the acts alleged herein, each and every
`
`managing agent, agent, representative and/ or employee of MARGATE HARDWARE,was
`
`working within the course and scope of said agency, representation and/or employment with the
`
`knowledge, consent, ratification, and authorization of MARGATE HARDWAREandtheir
`
`directors, officers and/or managing agents.
`
`21.
`
`At all
`
`times material, Defendant, HOME DEPOT U.S.A.,
`
`INC.,
`
`(“SHOME
`
`DEPOT”), was andis a for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State
`
`of Delaware, having its principal place of business located at 2455 Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA
`
`30339.
`
`
`> ACE Hardware Margate, Product search https:/Avww.acehardware.com/search?query=roundup
`(last visited Jan. 29, 2021).
`
`

`

`22.
`
`HOMEDEPOT,atall times material, was authorized to conduct and is conducting
`
`business throughout the State of Florida, including, but not limited to, conducting business in
`
`Broward County, Florida.’ Service of process on Defendant, HOME DEPOT,is predicated on
`
`Fla. Stat. § 48.081 and Fla. Stat. § 48.091.
`
`23.|HOME DEPOTisthe largest home improvementretailer in the United States and,
`
`at all times material, was engaged in the sale, distribution and/or supply of Roundup products
`
`containing glyphosate in Broward County, Florida.4
`
`24.—At all times material, and while committing the acts alleged herein, each and every
`
`managing agent, agent, representative and/ or employee of HOME DEPOT,was working within
`
`the course and scope of said agency, representation and/or employment with the knowledge,
`
`consent, ratification, and authorization of HOME DEPOTandtheir directors, officers and/or
`
`managing agents.
`
`. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`25.
`
`This is a negligence andstrict liability action for damages in excess of the sum of
`
`THIRTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($30,000.00) DOLLARS, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`Accordingly, this Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Florida
`
`Statute § 26.012 and § 34.01.
`
`26.
`
`Venueis proper in Broward County, Florida pursuant to Florida Statute § 47.051
`
`and § 47.021, as Plaintiffs’ causes of action accrued in Broward County and at least one of the
`
`Defendants against whom this action is brought has an agent and/or representative in this County,
`
`> Home Depot, Store Locator (50 miles within Zip Code 33037, Coconut Creek, FL)
`
`https://www.homedepot.com/I/search/33037/full/?lat=25.79 14267360362 &Ing=-
`
`80.38278849023436&radius=50 (last visited Jan. 29, 2021).
`
`4 Home Depot Coconut Creek, Product search, https:/Avww.homedepot.com/s/roundup?NCNI-5
`(last visited Jan. 29, 2021).
`
`

`

`and/or otherwise resides here.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff RICHARD WYZIK’s exposure to, contact with, and/or ingestion of
`
`Roundup products at various commercial landscaping jobsites located in Broward County, Florida,
`
`as well as on variousresidential landscaping jobsites located throughout Broward County, caused
`
`him to contract non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Plaintiffs’ alleged causes of action arise outof, or are
`
`incidental to each Defendant’s interstate, intrastate, and international business ventures conducted
`
`in the United States, including Florida.
`
`28.
`
`At all times material, the Defendants designed, manufactured, sold, distributed,
`
`and/or supplied Roundup products throughout
`
`the United States,
`
`including Florida, which
`
`Defendants knew or should have known contained glyphosate, and which Plaintiff RICHARD
`
`WYZIK purchased, used and/or was exposed to in his life, causing Plaintiff's non-Hodgkin’s
`
`lymphoma. Defendants’ affiliations with the State of Florida are so continuous and systematic as
`
`to render them essentially at home in the State of Florida.
`
`29.
`
`Each of the above-named Defendants have, at all times material to this cause of
`
`action, through their agents, officers and representatives, operated, conducted, engaged in and
`
`carried on a business venture in Florida; maintained an office or agency in this State; solicited
`
`businessor provided service activities within this State; and/or committed a tortious act within this
`
`State by manufacturing, selling, distributing, supplying, and/or disseminating to the public
`
`Roundup products that are inherently dangerous: 1) Without testing said products to determine
`
`their harmful effects on persons coming in contact with said products; and 2) By failing to take
`
`any reasonable precautions or to exercise reasonable care to adequately or sufficiently warn
`
`Plaintiff and other persons similarly situated, of the risks, dangers and harm of contracting non-
`
`Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other forms of cancers, through exposure to, contact with, use of,
`
`

`

`handling and/or manipulation of Roundup products and the consequent exposure resulting from
`
`the ordinary and foreseeable use of said products.°
`
`30.
`
`‘Plaintiffs’ causes of action arise from each Defendant operating, conducting,
`
`engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in the State of Florida or having an
`
`office or agency in this State; and/or committing a tortious act within this State. Furthermore, each
`
`Defendant has caused injury to Plaintiff RICHARD WYZIK within this State arising out of acts
`
`and/or omissions by each Defendant inside and outside this State. At the time of Plaintiff
`
`RICHARD WYZIK’s injury, each Defendant was engaged in solicitation or service activities
`
`within this State; and products, materials, or things processed, serviced, or manufactured by
`
`Defendants were used within this State in the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use.
`
`Additionally, each of the above-named Defendants have, at all times material to this cause of
`
`action, through their agents, officers and representatives, engaged in substantial and not isolated
`
`activity within the State of Florida.
`
`31.
`
`Defendants’ tortious conduct, including but not limited to failure to warn and/or the
`
`manufacture, sale and/or distribution of defective products, is continuing and presently existing,
`
`caused injuries to Plaintiff RICHARD WYZIK arose out of the acts and/or omissions which
`
`occurred inside and outside of the State of Florida during the relevant period of time Defendants’
`
`products were used and/or consumed in the ordinary course of commerce, trade and/or use, as set
`
`forth herein and said use or consumption caused Plaintiff RICHARD WYZIK to contract non-
`
`Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
`
`> This paragraph containsallegations of fact (not allegations of law) supporting Plaintiffs’ claims.
`Thus, Plaintiffs are not alleging that Defendants are subject to any legal requirementor legal
`duty not recognized under Florida law.
`
`

`

`IV.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`32.
`
`Atall times material, MONSANTOwasandisin the businessof, and does, design,
`
`research, manufacture, test, advertise, promote, market, sell and/or distribute the commercial
`
`herbicide Roundup.
`
`33.
`
`MONSANTOis a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St.
`
`Louis, Missouri.It is the world’s leading producer of glyphosate.
`
`34.
`
`MONSANTOdiscovered the herbicidal properties of glyphosate during the 1970’s
`
`and subsequently began to design, research, manufacture, sell and distribute glyphosate-based
`
`Roundupas a broad-spectrum herbicide.
`
`35.|Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup.
`
`36.|Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide used to kill weeds and grasses knownto
`
`compete with crops grown around the globe.
`
`37.
`
`The original Roundup,containing the active ingredient glyphosate, was introduced
`
`in 1974. Today, glyphosate products are among the world’s most widely used herbicides.
`
`MONSANTO’s glyphosate products are registered in 130 countries and approved for weed control
`
`on more than 100 different crops.
`
`38.
`
`From the outset, MONSANTO marketed Roundup as a “safe” general-purpose
`
`herbicide for widespread commercial and consumer use; Monsanto still markets Roundupassafe
`
`today.
`
`39.
`
`On March 24, 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”),
`
`an agency of the World Health Organization (“WHO”), issued an evaluation of several herbicides,
`
`including glyphosate. That evaluation was based, in part, on studies of exposures to glyphosate in
`
`several countries around the world, and it traces the health implications from exposure to
`
`

`

`glyphosate since 2001.
`
`40.
`
`Based on its cumulative review of human, animal, and DNAstudies for more than
`
`one (1) year, many of which have been in MONSANTO’s possession sinceas early as 1985, the
`
`IARC’s working group published its conclusion that the glyphosate contained in MONSANTO’s
`
`Roundup herbicide, is a Class 2A “probable carcinogen” as demonstrated by the mechanistic
`
`evidence of carcinogenicity in humansand sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals.
`
`41.
`
`The IARC’s full Monograph was published on July 29, 2015 and established
`
`glyphosate as a class 2A probable carcinogen to humans. According to the authors, glyphosate
`
`demonstrated sufficient mechanistic evidence (genotoxicity and oxidative stress) to warrant a 2A
`
`classification based on evidence of carcinogenicity in humansand animals.
`
`42.|The IARC Working Group found an increased risk between exposure to glyphosate
`
`and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (“NHL”) and several subtypes of NHL.
`
`43.
`
`The IARCevaluationis significant. It confirms that glyphosate is toxic to humans.
`
`44.__For nearly 40 years, consumers, farmers, and the public have used Roundup
`
`unaware ofits carcinogenic properties.
`
`Vv.
`
`FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`A.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff’s Use and Exposure to Roundup
`
`At all times material, RICHARD WYZIK, used Roundup products containing
`
`glyphosate at various commercial and residential
`
`landscaping jobsites in Florida between
`
`approximately 2001 and 2020.
`
`46.
`
`At all times material, RICHARD WYZIK followedall safety and precautionary
`
`warnings during the course of his use of Roundup.
`
`47.
`
`More specifically, Plaintiff RICHARD WYZIK used Roundupproducts during the
`
`10
`
`

`

`course of operations of his landscaping business, Greener Image, Inc., between approximately
`
`2001 and 2020,at various jobsites, including but not limited to Broward, Miami-Dade and West
`
`Palm Beach Counties, Florida.
`
`48.
`
`During this time period, Plaintiff RICHARD WYZIK used Roundup products that
`
`were manufactured, designed, sold, distributed and/or supplied by all the Defendants, including,
`
`but not limited to Roundup products that were sold and supplied by MARGATE HARDWARE
`
`and HOME DEPOTfacilities located in Broward County, Florida.
`
`49.
`
`Atall times material, Plaintiff RICHARD WYZIKapplied and/or sprayed Roundup
`
`products through the use ofa 1-gallon funnel top tank fitted with a grip pump handle anda braided
`
`hose. Plaintiff RICHARD WYZIK also applied and/or sprayed Roundup products through the
`
`Pump ‘N Go 2 Sprayer with an extendable wand. Plaintiff RICHARD WYZIKalso applied and/or
`
`sprayed Roundup products with a trigger sprayer.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff RICHARD WYZIKat all times material, purchased, worked with and/or
`
`used Roundup products in the intended manner, without significant change in the products’
`
`condition, and being unaware of the dangerous properties of glyphosate contained in Roundup
`
`products, relied on the Defendants’ instructions as to proper methods of handling the products.
`
`51.
`
`Defendants never warned Plaintiff RICHARD WYZIKasto the dangeror risks of
`
`using Roundup products, never provided him with any written materials about the danger or risk
`
`of using Roundup products, and/or never advised him that he could contract non-Hodgkin’s
`
`lymphomaas a result of using Roundup products.
`
`52.|Asadirect and proximate result of RICHARD WYZIK’s, use of Roundup products
`
`he contracted non-Hodgkin’s lymphomaandsuffered permanentand debilitating injuries.
`
`ll
`
`

`

`B.
`
`The Discovery of Glyphosate and Development of Roundup
`
`53.
`
`The herbicidal properties of glyphosate were discovered in 1970 by MONSANTO
`
`chemist John Franz.
`
`54.
`
`Thefirst glyphosate-based herbicide was introducedto the market in the mid- 1970s
`
`under the brand name Roundup.
`
`55.
`
` Glyphosate is a “non-selective” herbicide, meaning it kills indiscriminately based
`
`only on whether a given organism produces a specific enzyme, 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-
`
`phosphate synthase, known as EPSPsynthase.
`
`56.
`
`Glyphosate, among other things, inhibits the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-
`
`3-phosphate synthase that
`
`interferes with the shikimic pathway in plants, resulting in the
`
`accumulation of shikimic acid in plant tissue and ultimately plant death.
`
`57.
`
`Sprayed as a liquid, plants absorb glyphosate directly through their leaves, stems,
`
`and roots, and detectable quantities accumulate in the plant tissues.
`
`58.
`
`Each year, approximately 250 million pounds of glyphosate are sprayed on crops,
`
`commercial nurseries, suburban lawns, parks, and golf courses. This increase use has been driven
`
`largely by the proliferation of genetically engineered crops, crops specifically tailored to resist the
`
`activity of glyphosate.
`
`59.
`
`MONSANTOis intimately involved in the development, design, manufacture,
`
`marketing, sale, and/or distribution of genetically modified (“GMO”) crops, many of which are
`
`marketed as being resistant to Roundup i.e., “Roundup Ready®.” As of 2009, MONSANTO was
`
`the world’s leading producer of seeds, accounting for 27% of the world seed market, designed to
`
`be Roundup Ready®. In 2010, an estimated 70% of corn and cotton, and 90% of soybeanfields in
`
`the United States contained Roundup Ready® seeds.
`
`12
`
`

`

`60.|Glyphosate is ubiquitous in the environment. Numerous studies confirm that
`
`glyphosate is found in rivers, streams, and groundwater in agricultural areas where Roundup is
`
`used. It has been found in food, in the urine of agricultural workers, and even in the urine of urban
`
`dwellers whoare notin direct contact with glyphosate.
`
`61.
`
`Nevertheless, MONSANTO,since it began selling Roundup, has represented it as
`
`safe to humans and the environment. Indeed, MONSANTO has repeatedly proclaimed and
`
`continues to proclaim to the world, and particularly to United States consumers, that glyphosate-
`
`based herbicides, including Roundup, create no unreasonable risks to human health or to the
`
`environment.
`
`C.
`
`62.
`
`Registration of Herbicides under Federal Law
`
`The manufacture, formulation and distribution of herbicides, such as Roundup,are
`
`regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA” or “Act’), 7
`
`U.S.C. § 136 et seq. FIFRA requires that all pesticides be registered with the Environmental
`
`Protection Agency (““EPA” or “Agency”) prior to their distribution, sale, or use, except as
`
`described by the Act. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a).
`
`63.
`
`Becausepesticides are toxic to plants, animals, and humans,at least to some degree,
`
`the EPA requires as part of the registration process, among other things, a variety of tests to
`
`evaluate the potential for exposure to pesticides, toxicity to people and other potential non-target
`
`organisms, and other adverse effects on the environment. Registration by the EPA, however, is not
`
`an assurance or finding of safety. The determination the Agency must make in registering or re-
`
`registering a product is not that the product is “safe,” but rather that use of the product in
`
`accordance with its label directions “will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the
`
`environment.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(D).
`
`13
`
`

`

`64._FIFRA defines “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” to mean “any
`
`unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and
`
`environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(bb). FIFRA thus
`
`requires EPA to make a risk/benefit analysis in determining whether a registration should be
`
`granted or allowed to continue to be sold in commerce.
`
`65.
`
`The EPA registered Roundupfor distribution, sale, and manufacture in the United
`
`States, including, in the State of Florida.
`
`66.
`
`FIFRA generally requires that the registrant, MONSANTO,conduct health and
`
`safety testing of pesticide products. The EPA has protocols governing the conductoftests required
`
`for registration and the laboratory practices that must be followed in conducting these tests. The
`
`data produced by the registrant must be submitted to the EPA for review and evaluation. The
`
`governmentis not required, noris it able, however, to perform the producttests that are required
`
`of the manufacturer.
`
`67.
`
`The evaluation of each pesticide product distributed, sold, or manufactured is
`
`completed at the time the product is initially registered. The data necessary for registration of
`
`a pesticide has changed over time. The EPA is now in the process of re-evaluating all pesticide
`
`products through a Congressionally-mandated processcalled “re-registration.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a-1.
`
`In order to reevaluate these pesticides, the EPA is demanding the completion of additional tests
`
`and the submission of data for the EPA’s review and evaluation.
`
`68.
`
`In the case of glyphosate and Roundup, the EPA had plannedonreleasingits
`
`preliminary risk assessment —inrelation to the registration process—nolater than July 2015. The
`
`EPA completedits review of glyphosate in early 2015, but it delayed releasing the risk assessment
`
`pending further review in light of the WHO’s health-related findings.
`
`14
`
`

`

`D.
`
`The Importance of Roundup to Monsanto’s Market Dominance Profits
`
`69.
`
`The success of Roundup was key to MONSANTO’s continued reputation and
`
`dominancein the marketplace.
`
`70.
`
`Largely due to the success of Roundup sales, MONSANTO’s agriculture division
`
`was out-performing its chemicals division’s operating income, and that gap increased yearly. But
`
`with its patent for glyphosate expiring in the United States in the year 2000, MONSANTO needed
`
`a strategy to maintain its Roundup market dominance and to ward off impending competition.
`
`71.
`
`In response, MONSANTO began the development and sale of genetically
`
`engineered Roundup Ready® seeds in 1996. Since Roundup Ready® crops are resistant to
`
`glyphosate; farmers can spray Roundup onto their fields during the growing season without
`
`harmingthe crop. This allowed MONSANTOto expandits market for Roundup even further; by
`
`2000, MONSANTO’s biotechnology seeds were planted on more than 80 million acres worldwide
`
`and nearly 70% of American soybeanswere planted from Roundup Ready® seeds.It also secured
`
`MONSANTO’s dominant share of the glyphosate market through a marketing strategy that
`
`coupled proprietary Roundup Ready® seeds with continued sales of its Roundup herbicide.
`
`72.
`
`Through a three-pronged strategy of increased production, decreased prices, and by
`
`coupling with Roundup Ready® seeds, Roundup became MONSANTO’s mostprofitable product.
`
`In 2000, Roundup accounted for almost $2.8 billion in sales, outselling other herbicides by
`
`a margin offive to one, and accounting for close to half of MONSANTO’s revenue.
`
`E.
`
`73.
`
`Monsanto’s False Representations Regarding the Safety of Roundup
`
`In 1996,
`
`the New York Attorney General (‘NYAG”) filed a lawsuit against
`
`MONSANTObasedonits false and misleading advertising of Roundup products. Specifically, the
`
`lawsuit challenged MONSANTO’s general representations that its spray-on glyphosate-based
`
`15
`
`

`

`herbicides,
`
`including Roundup, were “safer than table salt” and "practically non-toxic" to
`
`mammals, birds, and fish. Amongthe representations the NYAGfound deceptive and misleading
`
`about the human and environmental safety of Roundupare the following:
`
`a.
`
`is
`herbicide
`friendly Roundup
`environmentally
`that
`Remember
`biodegradable. It won’t build up in the soil so you can use Roundup with
`confidence along customers’ driveways, sidewalks and fences.
`
`And rememberthat Roundupis biodegradable and won't build up inthesoil.
`That will give you the environmental confidence you need to use Roundup
`everywhere you've got a weed, brush, edging or trimming problem.
`
`Roundup biodegradesinto naturally occurring elements.
`
`Rememberthat versatile Roundup herbicide stays where you put it. That
`means there’s no washing or leaching to harm customers’ shrubs or other
`desirable vegetation.
`
`This non-residual herbicide will not wash or leach in the soil. It ... stays
`where you applyit.
`
`You can apply Accord (another glyphosate-containng MONSANTO
`herbicide) with “confidence becauseit will stay where you putit” it bonds
`tightly to soil particles, preventing leaching. Then, soon after application,
`soil microorganisms biodegrade Accordinto natural products.
`
`Glyphosate is less toxic to rats than table salt following acute oral ingestion.
`
`Glyphosate’s safety margin is much greater than required. It has over
`a 1,000-fold safety margin in food and over a 700-fold safety margin for
`workers who manufactureit or use it.
`
`You can feel good about using herbicides by MONSANTO. Theycarry
`atoxicity category rating of ‘practically non-toxic’ as it pertains to
`mammals, birds andfish.
`
`“Roundup can be used where kids and pets will play and breaks downinto
`natural material.” This ad depicts a person with his head in the ground and
`a pet dog standing in an area which hasbeentreated with Roundup.
`
`74.
`
`On November
`
`19,
`
`1996, MONSANTO entered into an Assurance of
`
`Discontinuance with NYAG, in which MONSANTOagreed, among other things, “to cease and
`
`16
`
`

`

`desist from publishing or broadcasting any advertisements [in New York] that represent, directly
`
`or by implication” that:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any componentthereof are
`safe, non-toxic, harmless or free from risk;
`
`its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof
`manufactured,
`formulated, distributed or sold by MONSANTO are
`biodegradable;
`
`its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any componentthereof stay
`where they are applied underall circumstances and will not move through
`the environment by any means.;
`
`its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any componentthereof are
`"good" for
`the environment or are "known for their environmental
`characteristics”:
`
`glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any componentthereof are
`safer or less toxic than common consumerproducts other than herbicides;
`and
`
`its glyphosate-containing products or any component thereof might be
`classified as "practically non-toxic."
`
`75.
`
`MONSANTOdid notalter its advertising in the same mannerin any state other
`
`than New York, and on information andbelief still has not done so today.
`
`76.
`
`In 2009, France’s highest court ruled that MONSANTOhadnottold the truth about
`
`the safety of Roundup. The French court affirmed an earlier judgement that MONSANTO had
`
`falsely advertised its herbicide Roundupas “biodegradable”andthat it “left the soil clean.”
`
`77.
`
`Despite this overwhelming evidence, Defendant MONSANTO, at all
`
`ti