Roundup

People usually call us with a working life rather than a legal theory: the years of spraying fence lines, the decade of Saturdays on the driveway, and then a biopsy and a word nobody in the family had said out loud before. Whether that history adds up to a claim turns on the exposure, the pathology and the dates — and finding that out is our work, not yours.

Roundup and glyphosate

Roundup is a widely used herbicide. Its primary active ingredient is glyphosate, a broad-spectrum herbicide used to control weeds and grasses in agricultural, commercial and residential settings.

Glyphosate has been registered as a pesticide in the United States since 19742. It has been used on farms, on landscaping projects, along rights-of-way, in parks, on commercial properties and in residential yards.

People who may have experienced repeated direct exposure include:

• Farmers and agricultural workers
• Landscapers and groundskeepers
• Nursery and horticultural workers
• Maintenance workers
• Property owners
• Home gardeners
• People who regularly mixed or applied Roundup
• People who worked around areas where Roundup was routinely applied

The amount, the frequency and the manner of exposure can vary significantly from one person to the next, which is why an exposure history is read rather than counted.

Why there are Roundup lawsuits

Roundup litigation centers on allegations that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides can contribute to the development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and that users were not adequately warned about the alleged cancer risk.

The scientific and regulatory history matters here, because major organizations have reached different conclusions about the same chemical.

What the record actually says

IARC, 2015

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer research agency of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A), reporting limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals1.

EPA, previously

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reached a different conclusion. Its previous human-health assessment found that glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used according to its label2.

EPA, now

EPA is reevaluating glyphosate under registration review. In August 2026 the agency published the results of a systematic search of the published literature to inform an updated human-health risk assessment, which it has targeted for completion in late 20263.

What none of it settles

A scientific classification, a regulatory determination and an individual lawsuit are three different things. None of them, on its own, establishes that glyphosate caused a particular person’s illness.

That last line is not a lawyer hedging. It is the reason these cases are decided on one person’s exposure history and one person’s pathology rather than on a headline.

A classification is not a diagnosis, and a regulatory finding is not a verdict.

Roundup litigation: how we got here

The chronology behind the current cases

1. 1974

   Glyphosate is first registered for pesticide use in the United States2.

2. 2015

   IARC classifies glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” citing limited evidence in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma1.

3. 2016

   Federal Roundup lawsuits are consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings in multidistrict litigation — In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2741, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California5.

4. 2018

   An update of the Agricultural Health Study, a large prospective cohort of licensed pesticide applicators, reports no apparent association between glyphosate and lymphoid malignancies overall, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma and its subtypes7.

5. 2020

   EPA issues an interim registration review decision concluding that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.

6. 2022

   The Ninth Circuit vacates the human-health portion of EPA’s interim decision4. EPA subsequently withdraws the interim registration review decision while continuing its review of glyphosate.

7. June 2026

   In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the Supreme Court holds that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act expressly preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim that would have required a cancer warning on Roundup’s label6. The decision changes the legal ground under a warning claim, and what it means for any particular case depends on that case.

8. 2026

   EPA continues its registration review and is updating its glyphosate human-health risk assessment, including its evaluation of carcinogenic potential3. A proposed nationwide class settlement is pending in Missouri state court, with a fairness hearing set for September 14, 20269.

A chronology, not a schedule. Where any of it leaves an individual claim is a question about that claim, and it is the question a case review is for.

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Roundup

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is not a single disease. It is a group of cancers that begin in white blood cells called lymphocytes, which are part of the body’s immune system8.

There are many different forms of NHL, and they can behave differently, require different treatments and affect people differently. The Roundup litigation has focused primarily on whether exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides may be associated with an increased risk of NHL.

Researchers have studied the question for years, and the evidence is not uniform. Some epidemiological studies and analyses have reported associations involving glyphosate exposure and NHL or particular NHL subtypes, while other major research — including findings from the Agricultural Health Study — has not found an association between glyphosate and NHL overall7.

That distinction matters, and it is worth stating plainly: an association identified in a study does not establish that Roundup caused an individual person’s cancer. Which is why the first thing we ask for is not a study. It is a pathology report.

Who may be considered for a Roundup claim review

Every potential claim requires an individual review. Our current screening criteria weigh several things together — exposure history, diagnosis and timing — and they are set out here so you know what we are going to ask, not so you can rule yourself out. That part is our job, and we would rather do it on the phone than leave you guessing. When in doubt, call.

What the current screening criteria look at

Direct exposure

The injured person must have experienced direct exposure to Roundup — spraying it, handling or mixing it, physical contact while using it, or contact involving the eyes, nose or mouth. Under the current criteria that exposure history generally involves at least 30 separate Roundup exposures.

A qualifying diagnosis

The injured person must have been diagnosed with a qualifying form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. NHL has many subtypes, so the exact diagnosis in the chart is part of the review rather than a detail.

The gap between them

Timing matters. Under the current criteria the NHL diagnosis must have come at least one year after the person’s first Roundup use.

Date of diagnosis

Screening generally considers diagnoses made in 2005 or later. An earlier diagnosis may still be reviewed where a pathology report is available.

Age at diagnosis

Under the current criteria the injured person must have been 79 years old or younger when the NHL was diagnosed.

Family history

A parent or sibling diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma may affect whether a claim meets the current criteria. Tell us either way rather than deciding for us.

HIV or AIDS before the NHL

A diagnosis of HIV or AIDS before the person’s NHL diagnosis may affect whether a claim meets the current criteria.

None of these are legal tests, and they are not the law of any state. They are the facts that let us tell you quickly and honestly whether there is something here.

Meeting every criterion above does not mean you have a case, and nobody can honestly tell you that you do until someone has read the records. Missing one does not settle it either — the history as a family remembers it and the history as the chart records it are not always the same, and finding out which you have costs nothing.

Information that can help with a Roundup review

You do not need to know every detail before contacting us. If you do not have a document, say so and tell us what you know instead.

• Approximate years Roundup was used
• How frequently it was used
• How it was applied
• Whether the injured person personally sprayed or handled it
• Where the exposure occurred
• Approximate date of first exposure
• The NHL diagnosis and subtype, if known
• Date of diagnosis, and age at diagnosis
• Name of the diagnosing hospital or physician
• Pathology or biopsy information
• Treatment history
• Relevant family medical history

Where records have to be requested, these are the documents that usually do the work — and locating older ones takes time, which is the main reason we start on them early:

• Pathology reports
• Biopsy reports
• Oncology records
• Hematology records
• Hospital records
• Treatment records
• Imaging reports
• Laboratory results
• Records confirming the date and type of diagnosis

What happens after you contact CBW Law

Five steps, in this order

1. Tell us what happened

   Start with the Roundup exposure and the diagnosis. Plain language is fine; so is an incomplete chronology.

2. We review the basic information

   Our team looks at the exposure history, the frequency, the diagnosis, the timing between them and the rest of the screening information.

3. We identify what is missing

   That may be a medical provider, pathology information, or detail about how and when Roundup was used.

4. Medical documentation may be requested

   Records can confirm the diagnosis, the subtype and the relevant dates. This is the stage the case usually waits on, and the stage we do rather than you.

5. The information is reviewed

   Meeting initial screening criteria does not guarantee that a claim can be filed or that compensation will be recovered. The facts and the applicable law have to be reviewed individually, and we will tell you plainly what we find.

Plain English

Medical, Health & Insurance

A Roundup review needs considerably more than confirmation that someone has cancer. It needs the exact diagnosis, the subtype, the date and the treatment history — and all of that arrives in two vocabularies, neither of them yours: the clinical language in the chart, and the coverage language in the letters from the health plan. Here is what the words mean, so the paperwork is readable before it becomes decisive.

The diagnosis, in plain English

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)

A broad category of cancers involving lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell. It is a group of diseases rather than one, which is why the subtype in the chart matters.

Lymphocyte

A white blood cell that is part of the immune system. The major types include B cells and T cells.

B-cell lymphoma

A category of NHL involving B lymphocytes. Many NHL diagnoses are B-cell lymphomas.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)

A type of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Follicular lymphoma

A type of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

How a diagnosis is documented

Biopsy

A procedure in which tissue or cells are removed and examined to help establish a diagnosis.

Pathology report

A medical report containing the findings from examination of tissue, cells or other specimens. Pathology documentation is often what confirms the exact type of lymphoma diagnosed, which is why we ask about it first.

Oncology

The medical specialty involving the diagnosis and treatment of cancer.

Hematology

The medical specialty involving blood and blood-related diseases. Some physicians specialize in both hematology and oncology.

Date of diagnosis

The date the chart records the diagnosis being made, which is not always the date a person remembers being told. Screening runs on the recorded date.

Records, insurance and billing

Authorization for release of records

The signed form that lets a provider send records to someone else. Expect to sign more than one, because facilities and physician groups usually hold separate files.

Explanation of benefits (EOB)

Not a bill. It is the health plan’s account of what was billed, what it allowed, what it paid and what it says is still owed. Keep every one of them — together they map where treatment happened.

Prior authorization

A plan’s approval before it will pay for treatment. A denial at this stage is appealable, and the appeal file is worth keeping.

Subrogation and liens

A health plan or program that paid for treatment may assert a right to be repaid out of any recovery. Finding those claims and negotiating them down is part of the case rather than an afterthought.

Educational only. These are plain-language summaries of words that turn up in charts, letters and bills — not clinical definitions, not medical advice, not a diagnosis of anyone, and not a description of what any particular policy covers. For what a diagnosis means, ask the clinician who made it. For what a plan covers, read the plan, and bring it to us if it is not clear.

Questions

Frequently asked Roundup questions

The questions callers actually open with, answered the way we would answer them on the phone.

What is Roundup?

Roundup is a brand of herbicide. Many Roundup products have contained glyphosate as an active ingredient.

What is glyphosate?

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide used to control weeds and grasses. It is used in agricultural, commercial and residential settings, and it has been registered as a pesticide in the United States since 1974.

Does glyphosate cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma?

Scientific and regulatory organizations have reached different conclusions. IARC classifies glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans and found limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. EPA’s previous assessment concluded that glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and EPA is currently updating its human-health and carcinogenicity assessment.

Neither conclusion establishes whether Roundup caused an individual person’s NHL. That question is answered case by case, on the exposure history and the medical record.

What cancer is involved in the Roundup litigation?

The litigation has primarily involved allegations concerning non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

NHL includes multiple subtypes, so determining the exact diagnosis can matter during a claim review.

How much Roundup exposure is considered during screening?

Our current screening criteria generally require direct exposure on 30 or more occasions.

Frequency is only one part of it. How the product was used, when exposure began, the diagnosis and the gap between exposure and diagnosis are all part of the same review.

Does getting Roundup on my skin count as exposure?

Direct handling, spraying and physical contact with Roundup can all be relevant to an exposure history. The circumstances and the frequency of that exposure still have to be reviewed.

What if I used Roundup at home instead of at work?

Exposure is not limited to agricultural employment. Residential and other direct use can be reviewed as part of the exposure history.

How long after Roundup exposure must NHL have been diagnosed?

Under our current screening criteria, the NHL diagnosis must have come at least one year after the person’s first Roundup use.

What if I was diagnosed before 2005?

Current screening generally focuses on diagnoses from 2005 forward. An earlier diagnosis may still be reviewed individually, particularly where supporting pathology documentation exists.

Can a family contact CBW Law if the person who used Roundup has died?

Yes. Additional information will be needed, including the date and cause of death and potentially a death certificate.

Other requirements and deadlines may also apply, and they can depend on where the claim belongs. That is one of the first things we check.

Why are medical records important?

Records confirm the things a claim is built on — the diagnosis, the NHL subtype, the date of diagnosis and the treatment history. What a family remembers and what the chart recorded are not always the same, and the chart is what the case runs on.

Do I need my medical records before contacting CBW Law?

No. You can begin by telling us what you know. If additional documentation is needed, the records process can be discussed after the initial review — and collecting it is our job.

Does meeting the screening criteria mean I have a lawsuit?

No. Screening criteria help determine whether further review is appropriate. They do not establish that Roundup caused an illness, that a viable legal claim exists, or that compensation will be recovered.

It also means we say no when the claim is not there, and tell you why. Taking a case we cannot prove does nobody any favors.

This page is general information about how Roundup claims work. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney-client relationship, and it is not medical advice about anyone’s diagnosis or treatment. If something here sounds like your history, the useful next step is a conversation about the facts.