FREE Case Evaluation: 1-888-887-3117
What cancers are included in the Roundup lawsuit has become one of the most searched questions as thousands of people seek answers about their legal rights after a cancer diagnosis. The answer extends far beyond the widely publicized non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cases.
Primary cancers included in Roundup lawsuits:
The surge in Roundup cancer lawsuits began after the World Health Organization's cancer research arm classified glyphosate as a "probable human carcinogen" in 2015. Since then, over 100,000 claims have been settled for nearly $11 billion, with thousands more cases still pending.
Research shows that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup may increase the risk of developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma by 41%. Multiple studies have linked Roundup exposure to various blood cancers and other malignancies.
I'm Tim Burd, founder of Justice Hero, where I help connect people with qualifying medical conditions to experienced legal representation. Through my work in mass tort litigation, I've seen how understanding what cancers are included in the Roundup lawsuit can be the key to getting the justice and compensation families deserve.
When people ask what cancers are included in the Roundup lawsuit, they're often surprised to learn it's not just one type. The list has grown significantly since the first lawsuits began, as researchers have uncovered more connections between glyphosate exposure and various cancers.
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma remains the primary focus, with multiple studies showing that Roundup exposure can increase your risk by 41%. NHL isn't just one disease - it's a family of related blood cancers, and virtually all subtypes have been successfully argued in court.
The blood cancers that have gained traction in Roundup litigation include chronic lymphocytic leukemia, hairy cell leukemia, and multiple myeloma. These cancers all affect your blood and immune system, which makes biological sense when you consider how glyphosate might damage your body at the cellular level.
Acute myeloid leukemia has also found its way into lawsuits, particularly for people with heavy occupational exposure. Pediatric brain cancer cases typically involve children whose parents were exposed to Roundup during pregnancy or early childhood.
The science behind this expanded cancer list comes from understanding how glyphosate works in your body. Research suggests it can cause genotoxicity (DNA damage), oxidative stress (cellular damage), and endocrine disruption (hormone interference).
The International Agency for Research on Cancer's 2015 classification of glyphosate as a "probable human carcinogen" opened the floodgates for research into multiple cancer types. The landmark Hardeman $80 million verdict, Johnson $289 million award, and Pilliod $2 billion judgment all involved non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, but successful cases involving other blood cancers have expanded legal precedent.
Currently, over $11 billion in settlements have been paid out across more than 100,000 cases, with 4,400 cases still pending in the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL 2741).
| Cancer Type | Evidence Strength | Legal Precedent |
|---|---|---|
| Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma | Very Strong | Multiple major verdicts |
| Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia | Strong | Several successful cases |
| Hairy Cell Leukemia | Moderate-Strong | Growing case law |
| Multiple Myeloma | Moderate | Some successful cases |
| Acute Myeloid Leukemia | Developing | Limited but emerging |
| Pediatric Brain Cancer | Case-specific | Rare but documented |
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is the most common NHL subtype, accounting for about 30% of all NHL cases. This aggressive cancer has the strongest research connections to glyphosate exposure, supported by a 2019 study in the International Journal of Epidemiology that followed over 30,000 agricultural workers.
Follicular lymphoma represents about 22% of NHL cases and grows more slowly but has been successfully argued in numerous Roundup lawsuits. Mantle cell lymphoma represents only 3% of NHL cases but has shown particularly strong associations with pesticide exposure.
Marginal zone lymphomas can develop in your stomach (MALT lymphoma), lymph nodes, or spleen. Burkitt lymphoma is one of the fastest-growing cancers and has documented connections to glyphosate exposure. T-cell lymphomas represent 10-15% of NHL cases and include peripheral T-cell lymphoma, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and anaplastic large cell lymphoma.
Courts have generally accepted that if glyphosate can cause one type of NHL, it makes biological sense that it could cause others, since they all arise from the same lymphatic system.
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia is the strongest player outside the NHL family. CLL is so closely related to small lymphocytic lymphoma that doctors often consider them the same disease in different locations.
Hairy cell leukemia gets its name from hair-like projections on cancer cells. Despite being rare, multiple studies have found connections between pesticide exposure and this leukemia.
Acute myeloid leukemia affects myeloid cells that normally become red blood cells and certain white blood cells. Multiple myeloma targets plasma cells that produce antibodies, with several studies finding associations between pesticide exposure and this cancer.
These blood cancers share vulnerability to glyphosate's mechanisms: endocrine disruption, interference with gut bacteria, and potential DNA damage. The legal system has been receptive to including these cancers because they share common biological pathways with established NHL cases.
The scientific foundation supporting what cancers are included in the Roundup lawsuit rests on multiple pillars of evidence, from cellular studies showing DNA damage to large-scale studies tracking cancer rates in exposed populations.
Key Mechanisms of Glyphosate Carcinogenicity:
Genotoxicity - Laboratory studies demonstrate that glyphosate can cause DNA damage and chromosomal aberrations, providing a biological pathway for cancer development.
Oxidative Stress - Glyphosate exposure increases reactive oxygen species production, damaging cellular components including DNA, proteins, and lipids.
Endocrine Disruption - Research indicates glyphosate may interfere with hormone signaling pathways, particularly estrogen, a known cancer risk factor.
Immune System Suppression - Studies suggest glyphosate may suppress immune function, reducing the body's ability to detect and eliminate cancer cells.
Landmark Research Milestones:
IARC 2015 Classification - The International Agency for Research on Cancer designated glyphosate as a "probable human carcinogen" based on "limited evidence" in humans and "sufficient evidence" in laboratory animals.
2019 Meta-Analysis - A systematic review found a 41% increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among individuals with high glyphosate exposure.
International Journal of Epidemiology Study - The 2019 analysis of over 30,000 farmers found specific links between glyphosate exposure and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
For detailed information about the scientific research, review the Scientific research on glyphosate and NHL published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
Historic Jury Verdicts:
Johnson v. Monsanto (2018) - Dewayne Johnson was awarded $289 million (reduced to $78 million on appeal), establishing the legal framework for subsequent cases.
Hardeman v. Monsanto (2019) - Edwin Hardeman received an $80 million verdict, significant as the first successful case in federal multidistrict litigation.
Pilliod v. Monsanto (2019) - The couple was awarded $2.055 billion (reduced to $87 million), demonstrating that shared exposure could affect multiple family members.
Recent Developments:
Settlement Impact:
Massive settlements totaling over $11 billion have resolved approximately 100,000 claims, though Bayer maintains Roundup is safe when used as directed.
Farmers and agricultural workers face the highest risk due to mixing concentrated formulations and applying Roundup across large areas year after year. Studies consistently find the highest cancer rates among people who work directly with glyphosate-based herbicides.
Groundskeepers and landscapers face similar risks, especially those maintaining golf courses, parks, and athletic fields. School groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson, who won the first major Roundup lawsuit, used the product multiple times weekly during growing seasons.
Railroad workers and utility crews spray Roundup along railway corridors and under power lines using industrial-strength formulations across massive coverage areas.
Gardeners and nursery workers face significant exposure, particularly those mixing concentrated products or working in garden centers. Even residential gardeners using Roundup regularly for decades have successfully pursued lawsuits.
Children living near treated areas face concerning risks through skin contact and breathing residues. Their developing immune systems may make them more vulnerable to cancer-causing effects.
The pattern is clear: more frequent and intensive exposure creates higher cancer risk, but even homeowners with regular long-term use have developed qualifying blood cancers.
Application frequency matters enormously. Using Roundup more than twice a year significantly increases risk compared to occasional spot treatment. Professional applicators using it weekly or daily face the highest risk.
Concentration and formulation plays a huge role. Commercial formulations contain much higher glyphosate concentrations than consumer products, plus mixing concentrated products creates additional inhalation exposure.
Duration of use is critical. Research suggests using Roundup for more than 10 years substantially increases cancer risk, with many successful lawsuit plaintiffs having 20-30 years of regular exposure.
Personal protective equipment usage dramatically affects exposure levels. Many early users mixed and sprayed without gloves, masks, or protective clothing, absorbing glyphosate through skin and breathing.
The Canadian class action defines "Significant Exposure" as more than two applications in 12 months or more than ten applications over a lifetime, giving courts guidance on meaningful exposure levels.
For detailed information on exposure levels and health implications, check out How Much Exposure to Roundup is Dangerous?
The most important qualification is having a cancer diagnosis after 2015 - specifically one of the cancers linked to glyphosate exposure. Most successful cases involve non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or related blood cancers.
Diagnosis timing matters significantly. Courts typically require cancer diagnosis after June 1, 2018, though this varies by state, when scientific evidence and legal precedents became strong enough to support causation claims.
Proving Roundup exposure is where cases succeed or fail. You need to show regular use before your cancer diagnosis - even seasonal homeowner use for several years may qualify.
Employment records are valuable if you used Roundup at work. Farmers, landscapers, groundskeepers, and railroad workers often have the strongest cases due to frequent, well-documented exposure.
Medical files must be complete, including oncologist records, pathology reports, and staging information to establish your specific cancer type matching scientific evidence.
Purchase records from hardware stores, garden centers, or agricultural suppliers help establish exposure timelines. Even old photos showing Roundup containers can be valuable evidence.
Statute of limitations varies by state, typically one to three years from diagnosis. The sooner you act, the better your chances of preserving important evidence.
Witness statements from family, coworkers, or neighbors who saw you using Roundup can strengthen your case tremendously.
For comprehensive information on required evidence, check out what proof do you need for Roundup lawsuit.
Over 100,000 cases have been settled as part of Bayer's $11+ billion settlement agreements, but approximately 4,400 cases remain pending in federal multidistrict litigation, with new cases still being filed.
Average settlement payouts range from $5,000 to $250,000, with most around $150,000. The wide range reflects individual case factors: age at diagnosis, cancer severity, exposure evidence strength, and life impact.
Jury verdicts range from millions to over $2 billion. Johnson received $289 million (reduced to $78 million), Hardeman got $80 million, and the Pilliods received $2.055 billion (reduced to $87 million).
Settlement vs. Trial: Settlements provide certainty but typically lower amounts than jury verdicts. Trials are riskier but offer potential for larger awards.
Compensation factors: Occupational exposure cases typically receive higher settlements than residential use. Younger plaintiffs often receive more due to longer life expectancy. Severe cancers generally result in higher compensation.
Future outlook: Individual cases with strong evidence continue achieving favorable outcomes, with some recent jury verdicts exceeding $2 billion.
For current settlement information, visit Roundup Lawsuit Settlements and Payouts.
This is probably the most common question I hear from people worried about their Roundup exposure. The short answer is that a single use typically won't qualify for a legal claim, but the full picture is more nuanced than that.
Successful Roundup cancer lawsuits almost always involve what lawyers call "significant exposure" - meaning regular use over months or years rather than one-time applications. The legal system looks for evidence that Roundup exposure was a substantial factor in causing someone's cancer, and isolated incidents rarely meet that standard.
Think about it this way: if you used Roundup once to kill weeds in your driveway five years ago, that's very different from a groundskeeper who applied it weekly for two decades. The courts need to see a pattern of exposure that makes biological sense as a cancer contributor.
That said, there can be exceptions. Someone with a genetic predisposition to cancer or other risk factors might be more vulnerable to even limited glyphosate exposure. Each case gets evaluated individually, looking at the complete medical and exposure history.
If you're concerned about a single exposure incident, it's still worth discussing with a legal professional who can review your specific circumstances. They can help determine whether your situation might have unique factors that could support a claim.
The landscape of what cancers are included in the Roundup lawsuit continues to evolve as researchers publish new studies. Right now, scientists are actively investigating connections between glyphosate and several other cancer types that aren't yet part of major litigation.
Liver cancer is getting significant research attention, particularly hepatocellular carcinoma. Some studies have found higher rates of the disease among agricultural workers who experience heavy pesticide exposure. Kidney cancer and pancreatic cancer are also under investigation, with preliminary research suggesting possible connections.
Other cancers being studied include breast cancer, thyroid cancer, and bladder cancer. While the evidence isn't as strong as it is for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, some researchers are finding patterns that warrant further investigation.
The legal world typically follows the science, but with a lag time. It often takes years for emerging research to translate into successful lawsuits. The scientific community needs to reach a reasonable consensus before courts will accept causation arguments for new cancer types.
My advice? If you've been diagnosed with any cancer after significant Roundup exposure, don't assume you're out of luck just because your cancer type isn't currently on the main list. The legal landscape changes, and what's not viable today might become a strong case tomorrow as research develops.
Losing someone to cancer is devastating, and when that cancer might have been preventable, families understandably want justice. Yes, wrongful death claims are absolutely possible when someone dies from a cancer linked to Roundup exposure.
These cases can be filed by surviving family members - typically spouses, children, or parents of the deceased. The legal requirements are similar to personal injury cases, but you'll need to prove that your loved one had qualifying Roundup exposure and that cancer was the cause of death.
Wrongful death cases often involve higher compensation than personal injury claims because they account for the lifetime earnings your loved one would have provided, plus the immeasurable loss of companionship and support. You can typically recover medical expenses, funeral costs, lost future income, and damages for emotional suffering.
The challenge with wrongful death cases is gathering evidence about exposure that may have occurred years or decades ago. You'll need to reconstruct your loved one's work history, document their use of Roundup, and gather medical records showing the cancer diagnosis and treatment.
Timing is crucial - each state has different deadlines for filing wrongful death claims, and these statutes of limitations are strictly enforced. Don't wait to explore your options, as critical evidence can disappear over time.
If you've lost someone to a Roundup-related cancer, I encourage you to speak with an experienced attorney who can help you understand your rights and guide you through this difficult process. No amount of money can bring back your loved one, but holding corporations accountable can prevent others from suffering the same loss.
You now have comprehensive understanding of what cancers are included in the Roundup lawsuit and hopefully clarity about your situation. The journey from cancer diagnosis to understanding legal rights can feel overwhelming, but you're not alone.
Evidence connecting glyphosate exposure to cancer continues strengthening, particularly for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and related blood cancers. What started with groundbreaking cases has evolved into one of the largest mass tort litigations in history, with over $11 billion in settlements helping families rebuild after devastating diagnoses.
Your situation matters. Whether you're a farmer, groundskeeper, or homeowner who trusted Roundup, your exposure history and cancer diagnosis deserve serious legal consideration.
At Justice Hero, I've seen how understanding your rights can transform fear and uncertainty into hope and action. Families who've achieved justice didn't start with legal expertise - they started with questions, just like you.
Time is critical in any legal claim. Evidence can disappear, witnesses' memories fade, and statute of limitations deadlines approach. Taking that first step toward understanding your options doesn't have to be complicated or expensive.
The legal landscape remains active, with thousands of cases pending and new research emerging. While the massive settlement wave has passed, individual cases with strong evidence continue achieving meaningful compensation.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with qualifying cancers after significant Roundup exposure, explore your legal options. The worst outcome is learning you don't have a case - but the best could provide financial security and peace of mind your family deserves.
For comprehensive information about pursuing a Roundup cancer claim, visit our main Roundup Lawsuit resource page. You'll find everything needed to take the next step, including connections to experienced attorneys who understand what cancers are included in the Roundup lawsuit and how to build the strongest possible case.
Your story matters, your health matters, and your fight for accountability matters.
