Case: 4:20-cv-01145-NAB Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/26/20 Page: 1 of 38 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
`
`National Black Farmers Association
`
` Plaintiffs,
`v.
`
`Monsanto Company
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COMES NOW Plaintiff National Black Farmers Association (“NBFA”), on behalf of its
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`members, against Defendant Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”), alleging the following upon
`
`information and belief, except those allegations that pertain to NBFA and its members, which are
`
`based on personal knowledge:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Monsanto’s Roundup® is a prevalent and yet highly dangerous product. Although it has
`
`long been marketed as an entirely safe herbicide whose main benefit is that it can be
`
`indiscriminately sprayed on fields planted with Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” seeds, we now
`
`know that using Roundup® and its active ingredient, glyphosate, in this way causes cancer—
`
`including Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (“NHL”), Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, Lymphoma, Multiple
`
`Myeloma and/or Leukemia. Bellwether plaintiffs have already litigated and prevailed on precisely
`
`such claims; other deserving plaintiffs are waiting to sue for their own damages; and certain class-
`
`action attorneys have already attempted to settle such claims, purporting to act on behalf of all
`
`other injured farmers. But conspicuously absent from these damages actions and purported
`
`settlements is any effort to get Roundup® off the shelf and protect farmers from the harm that it
`
`causes. The NBFA thus brings this action on behalf of its members, seeking an injunction that
`
`

`

`Case: 4:20-cv-01145-NAB Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/26/20 Page: 2 of 38 PageID #: 2
`
`will either require Monsanto to stop selling its dangerous product, or else substantially change its
`
`behavior so that Black farmers are adequately warned about and protected from the potentially
`
`fatal results of using Roundup® in just the way that Monsanto has told (or, really, forced) them to
`
`do.
`
`NBFA is perfectly suited to litigate this action for injunctive relief. A huge proportion of
`
`NBFA’s members have been exposed to and potentially injured by Roundup®. And until now,
`
`those members did not know of any association between exposure to Roundup® and an increased
`
`risk of developing these listed above, even well after the International Agency for Research on
`
`Cancer, an agency of the World Health Organization, first published its evaluation of glyphosate.
`
`That is because Monsanto has waged a campaign of misinformation espousing the safety of
`
`Roundup® even as it knew there was evidence to the contrary. And because NBFA is an on-
`
`ground farm organization—that is in fact run entirely by Black farmers—they are only too familiar
`
`with how Monsanto has misled its members, and what it would take to stop its harms from
`
`continuing to propagate.
`
`Indeed, the harms caused by Roundup® are felt acutely by NBFA’s members: largely rural
`
`Black farmers who frequently have limited internet connectivity and/or literacy, and are dependent
`
`on their local seed stores for product and information. Utterly unaware of the danger, these farmers
`
`have been all-but forced into purchasing Monsanto’s Roundup Ready® seeds and thus Roundup®
`
`products containing glyphosate by Monsanto’s aggressive business practices. Over the course of
`
`the last several decades, Monsanto has purchased local, conventional seed sellers and then
`
`removed their products from the market, making its own “Roundup Ready®” seeds the only option
`
`available to rural Black farmers. And to justify the huge, annual financial investment required to
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 4:20-cv-01145-NAB Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/26/20 Page: 3 of 38 PageID #: 3
`
`buy Roundup Ready® seeds, these farmers were forced in turn into purchasing and using
`
`Roundup® herbicides containing glyphosate.
`
`Compounding the issue, weeds have naturally become more resistant to Roundup® over
`
`the course of the last few decades as well, and now require the application of multiple chemicals
`
`(including dangerous chemicals like 2,4-D, a component of Agent Orange) to ensure the same
`
`yield. However, Defendant did not provide the safety training necessary to use these products,
`
`meaning that Black farmers have, for decades, been exposed to dangerous chemicals that are
`
`becoming more and more dangerous with time. At the same time, Roundup Ready® seeds are
`
`more expensive than conventional seeds, and must be replanted annually, whereas conventional
`
`seeds can be reused multiple times. This creates even further exposure to the dangerous chemicals
`
`sold by Monsanto and its parent company Bayer—again, all without proper safety training.
`
`In short, Monsanto has created a vicious cycle in which rural Black farmers have been
`
`forced into using Roundup Ready® seeds developed by Defendant, which require the use of
`
`dangerous chemicals without warnings—including glyphosate-containing Roundup® products—
`
`that must then be made even stronger (and more dangerous) over time. Having bred super-weeds
`
`by using Monsanto’s products and lost access to affordable conventional seed—and uniquely
`
`deprived of the resources to adopt alternative practices by decades of outright and structural racism
`
`in the administration of farm programs—NBFA’s members only end up exposing themselves to
`
`more and more carcinogens like glyphosate, and that leads, in turn, to lethal cancers that only begin
`
`to cause symptoms decades after exposure. The only way to break this cycle is to force Monsanto
`
`to stop selling its carcinogenic product. And that requires the injunctive relief that NBFA has
`
`brought this action to pursue.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 4:20-cv-01145-NAB Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/26/20 Page: 4 of 38 PageID #: 4
`
`I. THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff NBFA
`
`1.
`
`The National Black Farmers Association is a non-profit association that represents
`
`Black and minority farmers on various issues, including, “civil rights, land retention, access to
`
`public and private loans, education and agricultural training, and rural economic development.”
`
`The association has a long history, going back to 1995, of challenging discriminatory conduct by
`
`the U.S. Department of Agriculture and of pursuing litigation to that end on behalf of its members.
`
`Accordingly, NBFA’s efforts have been pivotal in pushing Congress to pass legislation
`
`compensating Black farmers for past harms.1
`
`2.
`
`NBFA was founded in 1995 by John W. Boyd, Jr., a fourth-generation Black farmer
`
`from Baskerville, Virginia, in the wake of repeated instances of discrimination.2 Since then,
`
`NBFA has been at the forefront of challenging discriminatory conduct by the U.S. Department of
`
`Agriculture. See supra note 1. Indeed, its claims of discriminatory loan and subsidy distribution
`
`have now been acknowledged by the USDA. Id. Black farmers—who are just as deserving of
`
`government assistance as white farmers—have been denied access because of their race. And the
`
`denial of aid has led to sweeping bankruptcies and foreclosures among Black farmers, with
`
`structural effects that continue to this day.3
`
`
`1 See Nat’l Black Farmers Assoc., https://www.nationalblackfarmersassociation.org/about_us
`(last visited Aug. 22, 2020).
`
` 2
`
` See Summer Sewell, There Were Nearly a Million Black Farmers in 1920. Why Have They
`Disappeared?, The Guardian (Apr. 29, 2019), https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/
`apr/29/why-have-americas-black-farmers-disappeared.
`
` 3
`
` See Congressional testimony of John W. Boyd, Jr., Founder and President, NBFA, available at
`https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109679/witnesses/HHRG-116-BA10-Wstate-
`BoydJ-20190619-U1.pdf.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 4:20-cv-01145-NAB Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/26/20 Page: 5 of 38 PageID #: 5
`
`3.
`
`Following a successful fight to redress the historic discrimination against Black
`
`farmers, which culminated in congressional legislation in 2010, the NBFA continues today to
`
`advocate for Black farmers and fight discrimination to ensure that its members receive the same
`
`aid and credit that white farmers do. The most recent example is NBFA’s effort to get farmers
`
`relief following the administration’s trade tariffs. See supra note 3. The organization also
`
`facilitates educational events for its members, helping them to navigate suits and settlements. See
`
`supra note 1.
`
`4.
`
`NBFA’s members include “full-time farmers, part-time farmers, land and timber
`
`owners and many concerned citizens.” See supra note 3. The NBFA is comprised of over 100,000
`
`members across 42 states. See id. Over the past century, Black farm ownership has seen startling
`
`declines. Studies show that the number of farms operated by Black farmers has been dramatically
`
`reduced, from nearly one million in 1920 to less than fifty-thousand in 2012. See supra note 1.
`
`Today, only about 1.3% of the country’s farmers are Black, and they own a mere 0.52% of
`
`America’s farmland. See supra note 2. Scholars attribute this decline in part to rampant
`
`discrimination.4 While USDA has calculated a recent uptick in the number of Black farmers, such
`
`numbers do not eliminate years of discriminatory treatment nor obviate continued discrimination
`
`today. See id. Further, the accuracy of these increases has been disputed.5
`
`
`4 See, e.g., Pete Daniel, Dispossession: Discrimination Against African American Famers in the
`Age of Civil Rights (2015); Zoe Willingham, Progressive Governance Can Turn the Tide for
`Black Famers, Ctr. for Am. Progress (Apr. 3, 2019), https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/
`economy/reports/2019/04/03/467892/progressive-governance-can-turn-tide-black-farmers/.
`
` 5
`
` Nathan Rosenberg & Bryce Wilson Stucki, How USDA Distorted Date to Conceal Decades of
`Discrimination Against Black Farmers, The Counter (June 26, 2019), https://thecounter.org/
`usda-black-farmers-discrimination-tom-vilsack-reparations-civil-rights/.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 4:20-cv-01145-NAB Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/26/20 Page: 6 of 38 PageID #: 6
`
`5.
`
`NBFA is a critical player in ensuring that the voices of its members are heard, and
`
`has a long history of representing members in litigation. The vast majority of NBFA members are
`
`rural; many are low literacy; and many more have no reliable connection to the internet or ready
`
`sources of information on critical and complex topics like those presented in this suit. NBFA holds
`
`regular meetings focused on practical farm issues, regularly communicates with its members
`
`through these (and other) outlets, and is thus a vital source of information and voice for its
`
`members.
`
`Defendant
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters and
`
`principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri.
`
`7.
`
`At all times relevant to this petition, Monsanto was the entity that discovered the
`
`herbicidal properties of glyphosate and the manufacturer of Roundup®.
`
`8.
`
`In September 2016, Monsanto was acquired by Bayer, a German chemicals
`
`conglomerate.
`
`II. ORGANIZATIONAL STANDING
`
`An association like NBFA has standing on behalf of its members when (a) its members
`
`would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, (b) the interests it seeks to protect are
`
`germane to the organization’s purpose, and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested
`
`requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. See Hunt v. Wash. State Apple
`
`Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). As to the first element, only one member need have
`
`standing to sue in his or her own right for the organization to have standing. Id. at 342.
`
`NBFA members have standing to sue in their own right
`
`9.
`
`NBFA has thousands of members who have used Roundup® products containing
`
`glyphosate for decades—including Founder and President John Boyd. Some of those members
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 4:20-cv-01145-NAB Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/26/20 Page: 7 of 38 PageID #: 7
`
`have already been injured by the use of Roundup® products, and others have legitimate reasons
`
`to fear (and believe) that they will develop symptoms, and thus require immediate medical
`
`monitoring. Both kinds of present injuries separately and independently provide standing for
`
`members to seek relief against Monsanto, including injunctive relief. Moreover, NBFA members
`
`who have not yet become sick will be more likely to develop cancers if they are unable to enjoin
`
`Monsanto’s continued marketing of an unsafe product that does not adequately warn farmers about
`
`the dangers of its use, or instruct on how to use it safely.
`
`Interests protected by this suit are germane to NBFA’s purpose
`
`10.
`
`Protection of farmers like those injured by Roundup® is NBFA’s core purpose.
`
`Moreover, NBFA’s members are particularly vulnerable to Monsanto’s predatory practices.
`
`Before Roundup®, almost every Black farmer—many of whom are members of NBFA—was a
`
`soybean or grain farmer using conventional seeds. But Black farmers have been forced away from
`
`conventional seeds over recent decades because Monsanto slowly acquired most other seed
`
`companies and bought up all of the shelf space from local seed stores, crowding out conventional
`
`varieties. The only remaining option was thus to buy the Roundup Ready® seeds developed by
`
`Monsanto, which, in turn, practically require the use of glyphosate-containing Roundup® products
`
`in order to justify the enormous premium these genetically modified seeds command. The
`
`overwhelming majority of Black farmers are thus now farming soybeans and grain grown from
`
`Monsanto’s Roundup Ready® seed, and using the products at issue here to do so.
`
`11.
`
`NBFA, meanwhile, has opposed Monsanto’s efforts to consolidate the market for
`
`years, and have sought to prevent Monsanto from taking away its members’ freedom to farm
`
`through conventional seeds and farming methods. Because they are smaller, more local, and more
`
`rural, Black farmers tend to be overwhelmingly dependent on local seed stores, and Monsanto’s
`
`mergers thus have a disproportionate effect on NBFA members. NBFA thus publicly and loudly
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 4:20-cv-01145-NAB Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/26/20 Page: 8 of 38 PageID #: 8
`
`opposed Bayer’s purchase of Monsanto, which allowed the merged company to further corner the
`
`market, and predictably led to Black farmers depending even more on Monsanto’s Roundup®
`
`products.
`
`12.
`
`The cycle is also self-perpetuating, and becomes more dangerous to rural Black
`
`farmers like NBFA’s members every year. Now that they have been forced into using Roundup
`
`Ready® seeds requiring Roundup® products, the weeds that Roundup® is intended to protect
`
`against—namely Pigweed and broadleaf species—have become more and more resistant. Thus,
`
`Black farmers are increasingly exposed not solely to Roundup® itself, as resistant weeds require
`
`an increase in the number of applications, but also to other dangerous chemicals such as 2,4D—a
`
`component of Agent Orange.
`
`13.
`
`Finally, in part due to long-documented disparities in literacy and education rates,
`
`Black farmers have been particularly harmed by the lack of a plain, clear warning (like those on
`
`cigarette labels) on Roundup® products, compounded by the fact that Monsanto has lied to them
`
`for decades, assuring them that Roundup® products are safe. Thus, for decades, NBFA’s members
`
`have used Roundup® products without any training on how to use it safely, despite scientific
`
`evidence that glyphosate is linked to cancer.
`
`14.
`
`NBFA played a leading role in litigation related to discrimination against Black
`
`farmers in USDA programs, and the protection and advocacy for its members’ interests in farm-
`
`related litigation is thus within NBFA’s core purpose. The issues this lawsuit will present could
`
`not be more clearly within the scope of NBFA’s work.
`
`Neither the claim asserted nor relief requested requires individual members’ participation
`
`Injunctive relief of the kind at issue here is ordinarily sought on behalf of all
`
`15.
`
`similarly situated individuals, see, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), and does not typically require the
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 4:20-cv-01145-NAB Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/26/20 Page: 9 of 38 PageID #: 9
`
`participation of individual members. Whether Monsanto can continue to market Roundup® and
`
`the warnings that are necessary to do so are naturally suited to representative litigation, and an
`
`organization that represents particularly vulnerable farming constituencies is thus ideally suited to
`
`prosecute this case.
`
`
`
`III. PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`19.
`
`Venue is proper in this court. Under the federal venue statute, a civil action may
`
`be brought in the “judicial district in which” the “defendant resides,” 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1), and
`
`also the “judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
`
`claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated,” id.
`
`§1291(b)(2). Venue is proper under either provision.
`
`20.
`
`At all relevant times, Monsanto, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bayer
`
`Aktiengesellschaft (“Bayer AG”), has had its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri,
`
`and is therefore amenable to suit here. Monsanto is therefore “at home” in Missouri, and this court
`
`has general personal jurisdiction over Monsanto. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown,
`
`564 U.S. 915, 924 (2011); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A) (providing that “serving a summons
`
`or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant: (A) who is subject
`
`to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located”).
`
`21. Moreover, at all relevant times, Monsanto was in the business of researching,
`
`designing, formulating, compounding, testing, manufacturing, producing, processing, assembling,
`
`inspecting, distributing, labeling, and packaging and Monsanto was in the business of marketing,
`
`promoting, and/or advertising Roundup® products in St. Louis, Missouri. There is thus specific
`
`jurisdiction as well.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 4:20-cv-01145-NAB Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/26/20 Page: 10 of 38 PageID #: 10
`
`IV.
`
`SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
`
`22.
`
`The National Black Farmers Association is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and
`
`Virginia nonstock corporation with its registered home office in Baskerville, Virginia.6
`
`23.
`
`Bayer AG is incorporated in the Federal Republic of Germany with its principal
`
`place of business in Leverkusen, Germany.
`
`24. Monsanto Co. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG, and has its principal
`
`place of business in St. Louis, Missouri.7
`
`25.
`
`The court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1). Monsanto
`
`is a citizen of Missouri under 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1). NBFA, as a Virginia nonprofit organization,
`
`is a citizen of Virginia under 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1). The parties therefore have complete diversity
`
`of citizenship. Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005).
`
`26.
`
`NBFA’s requested relief also meets
`
`the $75,000 amount-in-controversy
`
`requirement of 28 U.S.C. §1332. When there is a “suit for declaratory or injunctive relief, the
`
`amount in controversy is the value to the plaintiff of the right that is in issue.” Usery v. Anadarko
`
`Petroleum Corp., 606 F.3d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir. 2010). Under this standard, the measurement of
`
`value is the “actual value of the object of the suit.” Id. NBFA requests that Monsanto be enjoined
`
`from selling Roundup® products in the stream of commerce. See infra ¶132. As Monsanto sells
`
`millions of dollars of Roundup® products nationwide, the requested injunction meets the amount-
`
`in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. §1332.
`
`V. FACTS
`
`
`
`
`6 https://cis.scc.virginia.gov/EntitySearch/BusinessInformation?businessId=190627&source=FromEntityResult&isS
`eries=False
`
` 7
`
` See, e.g., https://www.investor.bayer.de/en/bayer-group/ueberblick/subsidiaries/.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 4:20-cv-01145-NAB Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/26/20 Page: 11 of 38 PageID #: 11
`
`27.
`
`In 1970, Monsanto discovered the herbicidal properties of glyphosate and began
`
`marketing it in products in 1974 under the brand name Roundup®. Roundup® is a non-selective
`
`herbicide used to kill weeds that commonly compete with the growing of crops. By 2001,
`
`glyphosate had become the most-used active ingredient in American agriculture with 85–90
`
`millions of pounds used annually. That number grew to 185 million pounds by 2007. As of 2013,
`
`glyphosate was the world’s most widely used herbicide.
`
`28. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St.
`
`Louis, Missouri. It is the world’s leading producer of glyphosate. But as of 2009, Monsanto was
`
`also the world’s leading producer of seeds, accounting for 27% of the world seed market.
`
`29.
`
`The majority of these seeds are Monsanto’s Roundup Ready® brand. Such seeds
`
`have been genetically modified to resist the effects of glyphosate. This permits farmers to
`
`indiscriminately spray their fields with huge amounts of glyphosate to control weeds without
`
`endangering the growing crops. In 2010, an estimated 70% of corn and cotton, and 90% of soybean
`
`fields in the United States were Roundup Ready®.
`
`30. Monsanto’s glyphosate products are registered in 130 countries and approved for
`
`use on over 100 different crops. They are 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 who are not in direct contact with glyphosate.
`
`31.
`
`On March 20, 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
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 4:20-cv-01145-NAB Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/26/20 Page: 12 of 38 PageID #: 12
`
`glyphosate since 2001. The IARC Working Group classified glyphosate as a Group 2A herbicide,
`
`which means that it is probably carcinogenic to humans. The IARC Working Group concluded
`
`that the cancers most associated with glyphosate exposure are non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other
`
`hematopoietic cancers, including lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia, B-cell
`
`lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.
`
`32.
`
`Nevertheless, Monsanto has consistently represented that Roundup® is safe for
`
`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 humans or the environment.
`
`33.
`
`For nearly 40 years, farms across the world have used Roundup® without knowing
`
`of the dangers its use poses. Those most at risk are farm workers and other individuals with
`
`workplace exposure to Roundup®, such as workers in garden centers, nurseries, and landscapers.
`
`34.
`
`These and other agricultural workers are, once again, victims of corporate greed.
`
`Monsanto assured the public that Roundup® was harmless. In order to prove this, Monsanto
`
`championed falsified data and attacked legitimate studies that revealed Roundup®’s dangers.
`
`Monsanto led a prolonged campaign of misinformation to convince government agencies, farmers,
`
`and the general population that Roundup® was safe. And this disinformation campaign had a
`
`disproportionate effect on Black farmers, who have become particularly dependent on Monsanto’s
`
`seeds and herbicides for the reasons discussed above.
`
`Scientific fraud underlying the marketing and sale of glyphosate/Roundup®
`
`
`35.
`
`Based on early studies showing that glyphosate could cause cancer in laboratory
`
`animals, the EPA originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group C)
`
`in 1985. After pressure from Monsanto, the EPA changed its classification to evidence of non-
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 4:20-cv-01145-NAB Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/26/20 Page: 13 of 38 PageID #: 13
`
`carcinogenicity in humans (Group E) in 1991. In so classifying glyphosate, however, the EPA
`
`made clear that the designation did not mean the chemical does not cause cancer: “It should be
`
`emphasized, however, that designation of an agent in Group E is based on the available evidence
`
`at the time of evaluation and should not be interpreted as a definitive conclusion that the agent will
`
`not be a carcinogen under any circumstances.”
`
`36.
`
`On two occasions, the EPA found that the laboratories hired by Monsanto to test
`
`the toxicity of its Roundup® products for registration purposes committed fraud.
`
`37.
`
`In the first instance, Monsanto, in seeking initial registration of Roundup® by EPA,
`
`hired Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (“IBT”) to perform and evaluate pesticide toxicology
`
`studies relating to Roundup®. IBT performed about 30 tests on glyphosate and glyphosate-
`
`containing products, including nine of the 15 residue studies needed to register Roundup®.
`
`38.
`
`In 1976, the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) performed an
`
`inspection of IBT that revealed discrepancies between the raw data and the final report relating to
`
`the toxicological impacts of glyphosate. The EPA subsequently audited IBT; it too found the
`
`toxicology studies conducted for the Roundup® herbicide to be invalid. An EPA reviewer stated,
`
`after finding “routine falsification of data” at IBT, that it was “hard to believe the scientific
`
`integrity of the studies when they said they took specimens of the uterus from male rabbits.”
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Three top executives of IBT were convicted of fraud in 1983.
`
`In the second incident of data falsification, Monsanto hired Craven Laboratories in
`
`1991 to perform pesticide and herbicide studies, including for Roundup®. In that same year, the
`
`owner of Craven Laboratories and three of its employees were indicted, and later convicted, of
`
`fraudulent laboratory practices in the testing of pesticides and herbicides.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 4:20-cv-01145-NAB Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/26/20 Page: 14 of 38 PageID #: 14
`
`41.
`
`Despite the falsity of the tests that underlie its registration, within a few years of its
`
`launch, Monsanto was marketing Roundup® in 115 countries.
`
`Monsanto has known for decades that it falsely advertises the safety of Roundup®
`
`
`42.
`
`In 1996, the New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) filed a lawsuit against
`
`Monsanto based on its false and misleading advertising of Roundup® products. Specifically, the
`
`lawsuit challenged Monsanto’s general representations that its spray-on glyphosate-based
`
`herbicides, including Roundup®, were “safer than table salt” and “practically non-toxic” to
`
`mammals, birds, and fish. Among the representations the NYAG found deceptive and misleading
`
`about the human and environmental safety of Roundup® are the following:
`
`a) Remember that environmentally friendly Roundup herbicide is biodegradable. It won’t
`
`build up in the soil so you can use Roundup with confidence along customers’
`
`driveways, sidewalks and fences ...
`
`b) And remember that Roundup is biodegradable and won’t build up in the soil. That will
`
`give you the environmental confidence you need to use Roundup everywhere you’ve
`
`got a weed, brush, edging or trimming problem.
`
`c) Roundup biodegrades into naturally occurring elements.
`
`d) Remember that versatile Roundup herbicide stays where you put it. That means there’s
`
`no washing or leaching to harm customers’ shrubs or other desirable vegetation.
`
`e) This non-residual herbicide will not wash or leach in the soil. It ... stays where you
`
`apply it.
`
`f) You can apply Accord with “confidence because it will stay where you put it” it bonds
`
`tightly to soil particles, preventing leaching. Then, soon after application, soil
`
`microorganisms biodegrade Accord into natural products.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 4:20-cv-01145-NAB Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/26/20 Page: 15 of 38 PageID #: 15
`
`g) Glyphosate is less toxic to rats than table salt following acute oral ingestion.
`
`h) 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 manufacture
`
`it or use it.
`
`i) You can feel good about using herbicides by Monsanto. They carry a toxicity category
`
`rating of “practically non-toxic” as it pertains to mammals, birds and fish.
`
`j) “Roundup can be used where kids and pets will play and breaks down into natural
`
`material.” This ad depicts a person with his head in the ground and a pet dog standing
`
`in an area which has been treated with Roundup.
`
`43.
`
`On November 19, 1996, Monsanto entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance
`
`with NYAG, in which Monsanto agreed, among other things, “to cease and desist from publishing
`
`or broadcasting any advertisements [in New York] that represent, directly or by implication” that:
`
`a) its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof are safe, non-
`
`toxic, harmless or free from risk. ***
`
`b) its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof manufactured,
`
`formulated, distributed or sold by Monsanto are biodegradable ***
`
`c) its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof stay where they
`
`are applied under all circumstances and will not move through the environment by any
`
`means. ***
`
`d) its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof are “good” for
`
`the environment or are “known for their environmental characteristics.” * * *
`
`e) glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof are safer or less
`
`toxic than common consumer products other than herbicides;
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 4:20-cv-01145-NAB Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/26/20 Page: 16 of 38 PageID #: 16
`
`f) its glyphosate-containing products or any component thereof might be classified as
`
`“practically non-toxic.”
`
`44. Monsanto did not alter its advertising in the same manner in any state other than
`
`New York, and on information and belief still has not done so today.
`
`45.
`
`In 2009, France’s highest court ruled that Monsanto had not told the truth about the
`
`safety of Roundup®. The French court affirmed an earlier judgement that Monsanto had falsely
`
`advertised its herbicide Roundup® as “biodegradable” and that it “left the soil clean.”
`
`46.
`
`In 2018, Dewayne Johnson—a black public-school groundskeeper tasked with
`
`regularly using Roundup® as part of his job—became the first person to take Monsanto to trial
`
`before a jury on allegations that Roundup® caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma.8 A unanimous
`
`jury agreed, handing down a verdict in Johnson’s favor and awarding him $289 million in
`
`compensatory and punitive damages. Id. The jury found that Roundup® products are a
`
`“substantial danger” to people and the company failed to warn consumers of the risks, and that
`
`Monsanto had acted with “malice or oppression” in its conduct.9 On cross-appeal, the court
`
`affirmed that there was “abundant—and certainly substantial—evidence” to support the jury’s
`
`finding “that glyphosate, together with the other ingredients in Roundup products, caused”
`
`Johnson’s “cancer.”10 The court also concluded that there was “substantial evidence” to support
`
`
`8 Sam Levin, The Man Who Beat Monsanto: “They Have to Pay for Not Being Honest”, The
`Guardian (Sep. 26, 2028), https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/25/monsanto-
`dewayne-johnson-cancer-verdict.
`
` 9
`
` See Verdict Form, Johnson v. Monsanto, No. CGC-160559128 (Cal. Super. Ct., Cty. of S.F.,
`Aug. 10 2018), available at https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-
`documents/johnson-trial/Johnson-vs-Monsanto-Verdict-Form.pdf.
`
`10 Johnson v. Monsanto Co., -- Cal. Rptr. 3d --, 2020 WL 4782728 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2020)
`(also denying the petitions for rehearing).
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case: 4:20-cv-01145-NAB Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/26/20 Page: 17 of 38 PageID #: 17
`
`the jury’s finding “that Monsanto acted with a willful and conscious disregard of others’ safety.”
`
`Id. Although the court ultimately reduced the compensatory and punitive damages awards, they
`
`s