By -

In an epic Federal Court judgment spanning more than 300 pages, Justice Michael Lee has handed down his decision in a landmark class action, brought by Mr Kelvin McNickle as lead applicant, against the manufacturer of Roundup, Monsanto and Huntsman Chemical Company.

McNickle grew up on a rural property on the Mid-North Coast of New South Wales. He would assist his father clearing vegetation during the school holidays and after finishing school, he began working full-time for his dad. McNickle and his father would use “Roundup”, a weedkiller, on the weeds and in doing so Roundup would seep into his clothes and onto his skin and get into his eyes and face. He would also inhale fumes from the product.

In 2018, McNickle was diagnosed with cancer, known as non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). McNickle’s argument was that glyphosate, glyphosate-based formulations (GBF), and Roundup Herbicide and Roundup Biactive which contained glyphosate, were carcinogenic to humans. Monsanto disagreed.

The main question to be determined by the Court was whether the use of and/or exposure to the herbicide products containing glyphosate and branded as “Roundup”, or contained glyphosate and branded as “Monsanto”, increased a person’s risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL); and/or caused an individual to develop NHL.

Given what was at stake, and the amount of evidence to be adduced, conclaves were formed to examine the epidemiology, animal studies and mechanistic evidence. This included examining the effect of glyphosate and/GBFs on humans, long term studies on experimental animals and whether glyphosate and/or GBFs can cause cancer in animals and evidence as to whether there was “a biologically plausible mechanism” by which glyphosate and/or GBFs can cause cancer in humans.

In dismissing the proceedings, the Court ultimately found that McNickle did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the use of and/or exposure to Roundup products increased a person’s risk of developing NHL and/or caused a person to develop NHL. However, his Honour pointed out that this is not the same as “saying affirmatively that it does not. … [W]hatever else is unclear, one thing is plain: the science is all not one way”.

The Court noted that although McNickle “will no doubt be disappointed in the result… his labours have not been in vain.”

The matter has been adjourned to 31 July 2024 to deal with the outstanding matter of costs.