On April 29, 2026, the California Sixth Appellate District unanimously affirmed a 2023 defense judgement issued by the trial court in the case of Jones v. Monsanto Co. in which the plaintiff, Bruce Jones, alleged that glyphosate exposure from decades long use of Roundup caused him to develop Non‑Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto knew or should have known of the risk but failed to warn consumers and misrepresented the product’s safety.
The plaintiff brought claims for strict product liability, negligence, fraud, and breach of warranty, relying on a 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic.” Monsanto countered that no scientific consensus links glyphosate to cancer, citing EPA and other regulatory findings that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.
At trial, the plaintiff sought to exclude regulatory evidence as hearsay and cited Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA (9th Cir. 2022), which vacated part of the EPA’s 2020 interim decision on glyphosate. Monsanto introduced National Association of Wheat Growers v. Bonta (9th Cir. 2023), clarifying that only part of the EPA’s decision was vacated and the agency still found glyphosate non-carcinogenic. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion, allowing Monsanto’s testimony, and found Jones had “opened the door” by referencing NRDC. The jury returned a full defense verdict, finding no known or knowable risks, no negligence, and no evidence that Monsanto knew Roundup could cause Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
On appeal, the plaintiff’s arguments focused exclusively on two evidentiary issues. He did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict; rather, he argued that certain categories of evidence were improperly admitted and that those errors warranted reversal.
First, he argued the trial court erred by admitting evidence that the EPA and foreign regulatory agencies found glyphosate does not cause cancer, claiming these statements were inadmissible hearsay. The appellate court rejected this, noting the plaintiff conceded the evidence was admissible to show Monsanto’s knowledge and the state of scientific understanding. Because the evidence was admissible for at least one legitimate purpose, the court found the plaintiff forfeited any claim by not requesting a limiting instruction as required under California Evidence Code § 355.
Second, the plaintiff challenged the admission of testimony relating to the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in NRDC and Wheat Growers. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling. It reasoned that the plaintiff had placed the regulatory framework at issue by relying on NRDC, thereby opening the door for Monsanto to introduce Wheat Growers to contextualize and rebut the plaintiff’s interpretation. The court further noted the plaintiff failed to preserve additional objections by not raising specific evidentiary challenges during trial.
Ultimately, the appellate court’s decision was based primarily on procedural grounds. The court emphasized that the plaintiff failed to preserve his arguments by failing to request limiting instructions, clarify evidentiary rulings, or make specific objections at trial. Applying established forfeiture principles, the court found no reversible error and affirmed the defense judgment.
