Land Park Conversations on Herbicides

Land Park Conversations on Herbicides

Sacramento Area Parks and Recreation

This blog continues with research that goes deeper into the City of Sacramento’s policy to spray parks….

In my short conversations with those who use, or support the use of GBH – glyphosate based herbicides – like Roundup, or it’s current successor known as Ranger Pro (a.k.a. Roundup Light, or Generic Roundup) what I have learned has shown me that, because of the immense documentation, court documents, and billion dollar global market persuasion, the controversy has influenced opinions that are adopted, and shared that have no factual basis.

Most supporters, and home users, the mow and blow specialists, the commercial licensed applicators, all begin their diatribe of disgust (when in conversation with those who state concern over glyphosate application) with the same company by-line, and it goes something like this:

“Oh those Roundup lawsuits are like 5, or 6 people, they made a lot of noise, and half the lawsuits were thrown out.” Another version goes along similarly but concludes that the plaintiffs “were all paid employees or contract applicators who did not wear proper protective clothing or PPE, or didn’t follow the product label guidelines.”

Both statements are completely false and not even close to reality. 

While 3 multi-million dollar lawsuits were recently tossed out, that leaves 106,997 lawsuits that have been settled. 

Another 30,000 are currently being adjudicated. And more are likely to be filed. 
(And in California, Prop 65 is the basis of another 4,000 lawsuit in California, as the label did not mention Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, or cancer.)

June 12, 2022 UPDATE





Yes, and the settlement is closer to $14 Billion actually. 

Bayer (the Frankfurt based drug corporation) paid 63 billion dollars to purchase Monsanto in 2018, and is now the world’s largest supplier of agricultural seeds and crop chemicals.

Bayer/Monsanto was ordered to pay the 10.5 Billion dollars in settlement, with another 4.5 Billion dollars set up to cover future claims, and do some research. 

Nearly 30,000 ‘Roundup Causes Cancer’ litigations are pending, and more are being filed. 

As of May 2022, Bayer/Monsanto had reached settlement agreements in over 100,000 Roundup lawsuits with arrangements to pay out $10.5 billion. 

Bayer has accomplished this by negotiating block settlement arrangements with plaintiffs’ lawyers who have large numbers of cases in the litigation.

Although these settlements account for nearly 80% of all pending Roundup claims, there are still about 26,000 active Roundup lawsuits. Most lawsuits have been filed in state courts. 

And there are still over 4,000 claims in the Multi-District Litigation Roundup class action lawsuit pending in California. A panel of federal judges created a Multi-District Litigation (MDL No. 2741)  to centralize  Roundup lawsuits pending in 21 separate district courts in the U.S., into one court in California.

All of the lawsuits accuse Monsanto of failing to warn consumers and regulators about the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma from exposure to glyphosate based Roundup. 

New Roundup lawsuits continue to be filed and attorneys get calls or receive  online contact forms from Roundup victims with NHL almost every day.

For the last two years, glyphosate has been at the center of thousands of lawsuits brought against Bayer, the pharmaceutical giant that took over Monsanto. Bayer produces Roundup, the weedkiller’s most popular brand name. Juries have awarded billions of dollars in damages to plaintiffs in court cases who claimed that glyphosate caused their cancers. In June, 2020, Bayer agreed to pay $10.5 billion to settle the remaining cases


The question of how dangerous it is to human health remains unsettled. As part of its interim review, the EPA found that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, but the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, has concluded it probably is carcinogenic to humans.


Bayer has lost multiple million-dollar appeals for cases over glyphosate claims. Thousands of plaintiffs have filed lawsuits across the country against Bayer, which inherited Monsanto’s woes after it purchased the company.

For current weekly litigation updates please visit:


…”In August 2021, a California state appellate court upheld the verdict that awarded $87 million in damages to Alva and Alberta Pilliod of Livermore, California. The couple had used Roundup at home for about 30 years; later the Pilliods developed similar types of cancers, according to court documents.”

“Among the moves, Bayer said it would stop selling Roundup products for residential use beginning in 2023.”

“Bayer has settled about 107,000 cases out of 138,000. The U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California last year rejected Bayer/Monsanto’s offer of a $2 billion settlement, expressing concern it would not adequately address the concerns of families who may later be diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.”

“As part of the 2021 Bayer announcement of settlement, the company said it would be setting aside about $4.5 billion for potential future legal claims and settlements if the Supreme Court did not agree to a review. That would put the total payout of Roundup claims at more than $14 billion.”

“Last year EPA released a biological evaluation of glyphosate’s potential effect on endangered species and critical habitats, finding it was “likely to adversely affect” 1,676 listed species and 759 critical habitats, the vast majority of the species and habitats considered.”


This blog update is particularly useful to the current Summer of 2022 and any discussions about Roundup cancer claims against the Bayer/Monsanto Corporation. The ongoing use of glyphosate based herbicides such as Ranger Pro, by the City of Sacramento, or the County of Sacramento, in any Public Spaces such as Parks, Libraries, Open Spaces, parking lots, City buildings, County buildings, etc., must cease.

Employ People Not Poisons

Copyright Disclaimer

By invoking the ‘Copyright Disclaimer’ Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.”

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights- Fair use: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

If you or anyone wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Tom DiFiore

%d bloggers like this: