Chemical giant Bayer lost its third consecutive appeal in a case over its use of glyphosate in the popular weed killer Roundup late Monday, in the latest victory for tens of thousands of people who have filed claims saying their use of the carcinogenic herbicide caused them to develop cancers.\u0026nbsp;\r\n\r\n\u0026nbsp;\r\n\r\nA California appeals court ruled that\u0026nbsp;Bayer, which purchased U.S.\u0026nbsp;agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018, is responsible for the non-Hodgkins lymphoma that Alva and Alberta\u0026nbsp;Pilliod developed after using Roundup for years, and\u0026nbsp;will have to pay the couple\u0026nbsp;$86 million in accordance with a trial judge\u0026#039;s ruling in 2019.\r\n\r\n\u0022Monsanto\u0026#039;s conduct evidenced reckless disregard of the health and safety of the multitude of unsuspecting consumers it kept in the dark.\u0022\r\n—1st Appellate District in the Court of Appeal for California\r\n\r\n\u0026nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe ruling\u0026nbsp;brings the company a step closer to seeking a favorable verdict from the U.S. Supreme Court.\r\n\r\n\u0026nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe Pilliods provided \u0022substantial evidence from which the jury could infer that Monsanto acted with willful disregard for the safety of others,\u0022 the\u0026nbsp;1st Appellate District in the Court of Appeal for California\u0026nbsp;ruled. \u0022Monsanto\u0026#039;s conduct evidenced reckless disregard of the health and safety of the multitude of unsuspecting consumers it kept in the dark. This was not an isolated incident; Monsanto\u0026#039;s conduct involved repeated actions over a period of many years motivated by the desire for sales and profit.\u0022\r\n\r\n\u0026nbsp;\r\n\r\nMike Miller, a lawyer for the couple, called the court\u0026#039;s decision\u0026nbsp;“well reasoned and correct.\u0022\r\n\r\n\r\n\u0026nbsp;\r\n\r\n\r\n\u0022Monsanto deserves to be punished for decades of hiding the truth about Roundup,\u0022 Miller told\u0026nbsp;Bloomberg.\u0026nbsp;\r\n\r\n\u0026nbsp;\r\n\r\nCarey Gillam, research director for U.S. Right to Know, applauded the strong language used\u0026nbsp;by the appeals court, which accused\u0026nbsp;Bayer of presenting evidence in its favor \u0022rather than fairly stating all the relevant evidence.\u0022\r\n\r\n\u0026nbsp;\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThe company claimed the verdict \u0022could not be reconciled with sound science,\u0022 and noted that the U.S. government has not classified glyphosate as carcinogenic.\r\n\r\n\u0026nbsp;\r\n\r\nAlthough the World Health Organization said in 2015 that glyphosate is a \u0022probable\u0022 carcinogen,\u0026nbsp;the Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. has claimed that including a\u0026nbsp;warning of cancer-causing risk on Roundup\u0026#039;s label would amount to a \u0022false claim.\u0022 In 2017, the National Institutes of Health released a study acknowledging that high levels of exposure to Roundup was associated with some cancers.\r\n\r\n\u0026nbsp;\r\n\r\nBayer is expected to ask the Supreme Court this month to take up a Roundup-related case it lost in 2019.\r\n\r\n\u0026nbsp;\r\n\r\nA fourth trial over Roundup\u0026nbsp;began in San\u0026nbsp;Bernardino, California last week. The company is facing tens of thousands of claims and has set aside more than $16\u0026nbsp;billion to settle the cases. It also announced as part of a settlement deal with plaintiffs last year that it will stop using glyphosate in its weedkillers that are marketed to homeowners\u0026nbsp;by 2023.\r\n\r\n\u0026nbsp;\r\n\r\nBayer plans to continue using glyphosate in herbicides for farmers, who use the chemicals heavily.\r\n\r\n\u0026nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe case the company plans to take to the Supreme Court was\u0026nbsp;brought\u0026nbsp;by Edwin\u0026nbsp;Hardeman, who was awarded $25 million. An appeals court upheld the verdict in May.