An Alameda County Superior Court judge has slashed a $2 billion verdict against Monsanto Co. to $86.7 million in a case brought by a couple who claim the company's RoundUp herbicide contributed to their cancer.

Judge Winifred Smith reduced the punitive, noneconomic and future medical damages in the case brought by Alva and Alberta Pilliod, who allege RoundUp led to their non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnoses.

Although Smith said the evidence presented at trial could support a finding that RoundUp caused the Pilliods to contract NHL, she found the general and specific causation was disputed in court. “For example, in addition to being potentially idiopathic, there was evidence that each Pilliod had one or more risk factors that suggest other causes of NHL,” she wrote in Thursday's ruling.

Smith cut Alva Pilliod's noneconomic damages from $18 million to $6.1 million and his punitive damages from $1 billion to $24.5 million. Alberta Pilliod's future medical damage award dropped from $2.9 million to $50,000; her noneconomic damages from $34 million to $11 million; and her punitive damages from $1 billion to $44.8 million.

Despite the reduction, Brent Wisner, counsel for the Pilliods and partner at Baum Hedlund in Los Angeles, said the ruling is still a net positive. “This a major victory for the Pilliods,” Wisner said. “The judge rejected every argument Monsanto raised and sustained a very substantial verdict. While we believe the reduction in damages does not fairly capture the pain and suffering experienced by Alva and Alberta, the overall result is a big win.”

Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, said that it will continue to dispute the science behind the claims that RoundUp causes cancer.

“The Court's decision to reduce the punitive, non-economic, and future medical damage awards is a step in the right direction, but we continue to believe that the verdict and damage awards are not supported by the evidence at trial and conflict with the extensive body of reliable science and conclusions of leading health regulators worldwide that confirms glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic,” the company said in a statement. “During argument on the post-trial motions, Bayer argued that the recent California Court of Appeal ruling in Echeverria, which found that a dispute over the science does not meet the clear and convincing standard required for a punitive award, supports the company's position that there is no basis to award punitive damages in this case.”

Bayer plans to file an appeal on the grounds that regulators such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority have reported that the company's glyphosate-based products are not carcinogenic.

Read the order: