Monsanto parent Bayer said to propose $8
billion settlement over Roundup claims
Bayer, which bought Roundup maker Monsanto last year, has reportedly
offered $8 billion to settle thousands cancer
claims.
Lawyers for the consumers who claim glyphosate, the active ingredient in
Roundup, caused their cancer, want $10 billion, according to Bloomberg.
However, mediator Ken Feinberg told Reuters that the reported offer is "pure
fiction."
Bayer's stock price has fallen by half since its June 6, 2018, purchase of
Monsanto.
Monsanto parent company Bayer is said to be offering an $8 billion deal to
settle about 18,000 claims that its weedkiller Roundup causes cancer.
Shares of Bayer jumped ahead of the start of trade Friday on optimism that a
settlement would end uncertainty about the chemical giant's liabilities.
The offer is less than the $10 billion requested by
lawyers representing consumers who claim their cancers were caused by
glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, according to Bloomberg News, which
cited people familiar with the negotiations. It could take months to reach a
deal, and there's no assurance the sides will come to an agreement, the
publication added.
However, a report in Reuters refuted the settlement offer, with mediator Ken
Feinberg saying Bayer has not offered to pay billions of dollars to settle the
claims.
"Bayer has not proposed paying $8 billion to settle all the U.S. Roundup cancer
claims. Such a statement is pure fiction," Feinberg told Reuters Friday.
"Compensation has not even been discussed in the global mediation discussions."
Bayer didn't return a request for comment. Still, the prospect of a settlement
cheered investors, sending Bayer shares up 4.7% on Friday.
"$8 billion would be lower than most analysts are forecasting and many investors
fearing," Markus Mayer, an analyst at Baader Helvea, told Bloomberg.
Glyphosate is facing an unprecedented tests both in the courtroom and in
America's homes amid rising concern about the safety of the chemical. Tests from
environmental groups are adding to consumer worries, such as a recent study
finding that 21 oat-based cereal and snack products, including Cheerios, contain
traces of glyphosate.
Since Bayer bought Roundup's maker Monsanto last year, the German chemical giant
has lost three high-profile court cases over the chemical's possible link to
cancer.
Investors have fled Bayer over concerns about its potential liabilities, halving
the company's stock price since its June 6, 2018, purchase of Monsanto. In its
most recent annual report, Bayer said it expects more lawsuits to emerge.
June 24, 2020
Bayer announces
agreements to resolve major legacy Monsanto litigation
Company will make a total payment of
$10.1 billion to $10.9 billion (EUR 9.1 billion to EUR 9.8 billion)
to resolve current and address potential future
Roundup™ litigation /
Company also resolves dicamba drift litigation
for payment of up to $400 million and most PCB water litigation exposure for
payment of approximately $820 million /
Funding sourced from free cash flow and Animal Health divestment /
Bayer is well positioned to deliver science-based solutions to meet global
health, nutrition needs
Bayer announced today a series of agreements that will substantially
resolve major outstanding Monsanto litigation, including
U.S. Roundup™ product liability litigation,
dicamba drift litigation and
PCB water litigation.
The main feature is the U.S.
Roundup™ resolution that will bring closure
to approximately 75% of the current Roundup™ litigation involving
approximately 125,000 filed and unfiled claims overall. The resolved
claims include all plaintiff law firms leading the Roundup™ federal
multi-district litigation (MDL) or the California bellwether cases, and
those representing approximately 95% of the cases currently set for
trial, and establish key values and parameters to guide the resolution
of the remainder of the claims as negotiations advance. The resolution
also puts in place a mechanism to resolve
potential future claims efficiently. The company will make a
payment of $8.8 billion to $9.6 billion to
resolve the current Roundup™ litigation, including an allowance expected
to cover unresolved claims, and $1.25 billion to
support a separate class agreement to address potential future
litigation. The Roundup™ class agreement will be subject to approval by
Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The resolutions were approved unanimously by
Bayer’s Board of Management and Supervisory Board with input from its
Special Litigation Committee. The agreements contain no admission of
liability or wrongdoing.
“First and foremost, the Roundup™ settlement is the right action at the
right time for Bayer to bring a long period of uncertainty to an end,”
said Werner Baumann, Chief Executive Officer of Bayer. “It resolves most
current claims and puts in place a clear mechanism to manage risks of
potential future litigation. It is financially reasonable when viewed
against the significant financial risks of continued, multi-year
litigation and the related impacts to our reputation and to our
business. The decision to resolve the Roundup™ litigation enables us to
focus fully on the critical supply of healthcare and food. It will also
return the conversation about the safety and utility of glyphosate-based
herbicides to the scientific and regulatory arena and to the full body
of science.”
“The Roundup™ agreements are designed as a constructive and reasonable
resolution to a unique litigation,” said Kenneth R. Feinberg,
court-appointed mediator for the settlement talks. “The separate,
independent settlements of the current claims are unique and a tribute
to Bayer. The significant progress made to date – which exceeds the
initial participation rates of other claims resolution proceedings –
provides a robust framework that will enable the parties to bring
closure to the current Roundup™ litigation in due course.”
Resolution of Roundup™ litigation
The multi-step Roundup™ resolution includes several elements. The
agreements will resolve the vast majority of the current litigation in
U.S. federal and state courts, including both plaintiffs with filed
cases and parties who have retained counsel but not yet filed their
claims in court. Those participating in the settlement will be required
to dismiss their cases or agree not to file. The range of $8.8 billion
to $9.6 billion covers both the agreements already signed and those that
are still under negotiation. It also reflects the fact that the number
of claimants who are eligible to receive compensation under these
agreements won’t be known until the claims process is well underway. The
claims still subject to negotiation largely consist of cases generated
by TV advertising and for which plaintiffs’ law firms have provided
little or no information on the medical condition of their clients,
and/or cases held by law firms with small inventories.
The three cases that have gone to trial – Johnson, Hardeman and Pilliod
– will continue through the appeals process and are not covered by the
settlement. It is important for the company to continue these cases as
the appeals will provide legal guidance going forward. In an appellate
court filing, the U.S. government expressed its specific support for the
company’s preemption arguments, asserting that state law warning claims
in the Roundup™ litigation conflict with U.S. federal law, requiring no
cancer warning, and must be dismissed. Just this week, a federal judge
in California found that the weight of scientific evidence does not
support the state’s Proposition 65 cancer warning requirement for
glyphosate-based herbicides -- a ruling that reinforces the very
arguments the company has made at trial.
Potential future cases will be governed by a class agreement which is
subject to court approval. The agreement includes the establishment of a
class of potential future plaintiffs and the creation of an independent
Class Science Panel. The Class Science Panel will determine whether
Roundup™ can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), and if so, at what
minimum exposure levels. The materials considered by the Class Science
Panel that Bayer has permission to disclose or are in the public domain
will be posted on a public website. Both the class and company will be
bound by the Class Science Panel’s determination on this question of
general causation, taking this decision out of the jury trial setting
and putting it back in the hands of expert scientists. If the Class
Science Panel determines that a causal connection between Roundup™ and
NHL is not established, class members will be barred from claiming
otherwise in any future litigation against the company. The Class
Science Panel’s determination is expected to take several years. Class
members will not be permitted to proceed with Roundup™ claims prior to
the Class Science Panel’s determination, and cannot seek punitive
damages. The agreed funding is capped at $1.25 billion and will support
research into treatment of NHL, NHL diagnostic programs in underserved
areas, and assistance payments to class members who develop NHL before
the Class Science Panel’s determination and are eligible on a need basis
for assistance during that period.
The company said that before deciding to settle, it considered the
alternative course of continuing to litigate Roundup™ cases. In the
company’s risk assessment, potential negative outcomes of further
litigation, including more advertising and growing numbers of
plaintiffs, upwards of twenty trials per year and uncertain jury
outcomes, and associated reputational and business impacts, likely would
substantially exceed the settlement and related costs.
“Taking account of various options, I am convinced this plan provides a
comprehensive, reasonable solution to the complex, contested issues
presented by this litigation,” said attorney John Beisner, a consultant
to Bayer’s Supervisory Board and a mass tort expert who leads Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP’s Mass Torts, Insurance and Consumer
Litigation Practice Group.
“Supported by our external advisor John Beisner and the Litigation
Committee, the Supervisory Board has closely followed the Roundup™
litigation, as well as the dicamba and PCB litigation, and has provided
counsel to the Board of Management on these matters. The Supervisory
Board unanimously agrees with our Board of Management that all three
settlements are in the best interest of the company and our
stakeholders,” said Norbert Winkeljohann, Chairman of Bayer’s
Supervisory Board.
Baumann added: “Our company is grounded in the well-being of our
customers. As a science-based company committed to improving people’s
health, we have great sympathy for anyone who suffers from disease, and
we understand their search for answers. At the same time, the extensive
body of science indicates that Roundup™ does not cause cancer, and
therefore, is not responsible for the illnesses alleged in this
litigation. We stand strongly behind our glyphosate-based herbicides,
which are among the most rigorously studied products of their kind, and
four decades of science support their safety and that they are not
carcinogenic.” Indeed, in its Interim Registration Review Decision,
issued in January, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
accurately concluded that it “did not identify any human health risks
from exposure to glyphosate.”
Customers, including farmers and other professional users who depend on
glyphosate-based herbicides for their livelihoods, will see no change in
the availability of Roundup™ products under the Roundup™ agreements
announced today. Meanwhile, Bayer remains committed to offering
customers more choices and announced last year an investment of
approximately EUR 5 billion over a ten-year period to develop additional
methods to manage weeds as part of an integrated approach to sustainable
agriculture.
Resolution of dicamba litigation
Bayer also announced a mass tort agreement to settle the previously
disclosed dicamba drift litigation involving alleged damage to crops.
The company will pay up to a total of $400 million to resolve the
multi-district litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri and claims for the 2015-2020 crop years.
Claimants will be required to provide proof of damage to crop yields and
evidence that it was due to dicamba in order to collect. The company
expects a contribution from its co-defendant, BASF, towards this
settlement.
The only dicamba drift case to go to trial – Bader Farms – is not
included in this resolution. The company believes the verdict in Bader
Farms is inconsistent with the evidence and the law and will continue to
pursue post-trial motions and an appeal, if necessary.
Bayer stands strongly behind the safety and utility of its XtendiMax™
herbicide with VaporGrip™ technology and continues to enhance training
and education efforts to help ensure growers use these products
successfully. The company is settling the pending dicamba drift cases to
be able to focus on the needs of its customers.
Resolution of PCB litigation
Bayer also announced a series of agreements that resolve cases
representing most of the company’s exposure to PCB water litigation.
Monsanto legally manufactured PCBs until ceasing
their production in 1977. One agreement establishes a class that
includes all local governments with EPA permits involving water
discharges impaired by PCBs. Bayer will pay a total of approximately
$650 million to the class, which will be subject to court approval.
At the same time, the company has
entered into separate agreements with the Attorneys-General of New
Mexico, Washington, and the District of Columbia to resolve similar PCB
claims. For these agreements, which are separate from the class, Bayer
will make payments that together total approximately $170 million.
Funding sourced from free cash flow and Animal Health divestment
Cash payments related to the settlements are expected to start in 2020.
Bayer currently assumes that the potential cash outflow will not exceed
$5 billion in 2020 and $5 billion in 2021; the remaining balance would
be paid in 2022 or thereafter. In order to finance these payments which
are subject to tax treatment, Bayer can make use of existing surplus
liquidity, future free cash flows, the proceeds from the Animal Health
divestment, and additional bond issuances, which will provide
flexibility in managing the settlement payments as well as upcoming debt
maturities.
Based on publications by the rating agencies and the company’s
communication with them, Bayer expects to keep investment grade credit
ratings. With its strong underlying business, the company intends to
keep its dividend policy. At the same time, deleveraging the balance
sheet remains a high priority.
Bayer: Well positioned for the future
“As we work to put this major litigation behind us, Bayer can set a
course for the future and tackle the global challenges we face in both
health and nutrition – not only today as we confront the COVID-19
pandemic, but also long-term, as we work to improve quality of life for
a growing and aging population of an estimated 10 billion people by
2050,” said Baumann. “More than 100,000 people put their energies into
making our vision of ‘Health for all, Hunger for none’ come true with
medicines and agricultural products. We believe that science and
innovation will be critical to the future, just as they have been for
Bayer in serving customers and patients over nearly 160 years. We are
committed to addressing these challenges in a responsible manner, both
to help meet the UN’s sustainable development goals, and maintain the
transparency and constructive engagement with stakeholders that is
essential to sustain public trust in our products and in our company.”
11/30/2020
U.S. judge rejects $648 million
Bayer PCB contamination settlement
A federal judge has rejected
Bayer AG's proposed $648 million settlement of class-action
litigation by cities and other claimants over
contamination from polychlorinated
biphenyls, or PCBs, made by the former Monsanto Co.
In a Nov. 25 decision, U.S.
District Judge Fernando Olguin in Los Angeles said the accord
appeared "overly broad" because it could
shield Bayer from future claims, and require the settling
plaintiffs to indemnify Bayer against those claims.
Olguin also said most of the
2,528 class members stood to receive "very modest" payments of
just $15,000 to $30,000, making the indemnification provision
"troubling."
Bayer, which bought Monsanto
for $63 billion in 2018, said in a statement it would work with
the plaintiffs to address Olguin's concerns, and was confident
it would reach a revised preliminary settlement by the Dec. 31
deadline he set.
Los Angeles County and the
cities of San Diego, Baltimore and Portland, Oregon are among
the plaintiffs, which came from 36 U.S. states. The payout was
to include $550 million for class members and up to $98 million
for legal fees and expenses.
The German company announced
the settlement in June, when it also proposed paying roughly $12
billion to resolve litigation tied to Monsanto.
Most of that was to resolve
claims that Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller caused cancer. Bayer
has said Roundup is safe for human use.
PCBs were once used widely to
insulate electrical equipment, and also used in such products as
carbonless copy paper, caulking, floor finish and paint. They
were outlawed by the U.S. government in 1979 after being linked
to cancer and other health problems. Monsanto produced PCBs from
1935 to 1977.
The case is City of Long
Beach et al v. Monsanto Co, U.S. District Court, Central
District of California, No. 16-03493.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Edwina
Gibbs)
MNA
Bayer working
to replace controversial chemical in weed killer
Bayer is hoping to introduce a substitute
for glyphosate — the active ingredient in controversial weed killer Roundup
— within four years, Bill Anderson, chief executive of the German chemical
company said.
“We are testing this new substance on
real plants. It’s the first revolutionary innovation in this area in 30
years. Our objective is to have it on the market in 2028,” he told German
Sunday newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung.
Bayer has faced numerous court cases in
the United States linked to the suspected cancerous effects of Roundup
produced by Monsanto, a US company Bayer acquired in 2018 for $60 billion.
At the end of January, 54,000 claims were
still outstanding out of 167,000 initially registered.
Bayer has been fined billions of dollars,
with most cases still under appeal. Anderson told the newspaper his group
wants to speed up the settlements.
“We will improve our defence strategy and
see what can be done outside the courts to limit our legal risks,” he said,
declining to provide further details.
August 16, 2024
Bayer wins victory in US legal battle against
Roundup cancer claims
Bayer, opens new tab won a legal victory in its fight to limit liability from
claims that its Roundup weed killer causes cancer, as a U.S. appeals court on
Thursday said federal law shields the German company from a lawsuit by a
Pennsylvania landscaper.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia rejected plaintiff David
Schaffner's claim that Bayer's Monsanto unit violated state law by failing to
put a cancer warning on the label for Roundup.
Schaffner was diagnosed in 2006 with a kind of cancer called non-Hodgkins
lymphoma, a common claim for Roundup plaintiffs.
He and his wife Theresa sued Bayer in 2019, in part over how his illness
affected their relationship.
Chief Judge Michael Chagares wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel that the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act（FIFRA) requires
nationwide uniformity in pesticide labels, and prevented
Pennsylvania from adding a cancer warning.
Bayer said the decision conflicts with rulings from federal appeals courts in
San Francisco and Atlanta in similar cases.
That may increase the prospect that the U.S. Supreme Court could step in to
resolve the split, and potentially reduce Bayer's liabilities.
Chip Becker, a lawyer for the Schaffners, said he was disappointed with the
decision, and that federal law should not preempt his clients' failure-to-warn
claim. He said the Schaffners are reviewing their legal options.
Bayer said it was pleased with the decision, and the Supreme Court should
"settle this important issue of law."
It has maintained that Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate are safe,
and said it "continues to stand fully behind" the brand.
Bayer has faced extensive litigation over Roundup, and has seen its share price
fall more than 73% since buying Monsanto for $63 billion in June 2018.
The company settled much of the Roundup litigation for $10.9 billion in 2020,
but still faces about 58,000 claims , opens new tab. Another 114,000 claims have
been settled or deemed ineligible.
Though Bayer won 14 of 23 Roundup trials through July 23, one victory was
overturned on appeal, and the losses saddled it with billions of dollars of
damages awards.
The Schaffners settled with Bayer in September 2022, conditioned on Bayer being
unable to convince courts that federal law preempted Pennsylvania from requiring
a cancer warning.
Chagares said it did, and that this approach "best achieves Congress's stated
aim of uniformity in pesticide labeling."
Roundup is among the most widely used weed killers in the United States. Bayer
phased out sales for home use last year.
The case is Schaffner et al v Monsanto Corp, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
No. 22-3075.
Bayer shares soar 11% after key U.S.
legal win against Roundup cancer claims
Bayer shares
jumped in morning trade as the German life
sciences company said it scored a legal victory
in its suit over claims that exposure to its
popular Roundup weed killer led to cancer.
The company
on Thursday announced that the 3rd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in Philadelphia found in its
favor against plaintiff David Schaffner’s claim
alleging a state law violation incurred by
failing to add a cancer warning to the Roundup
label.
Bayer has
been mired in legal conflict over Roundup, with
Reuters estimating that 165,000 charges were
brought against the product in the U.S., of
which roughly 54,000 reportedly remain as of
August, following a $10.9 billion settlement in
2020.
Bayer
Jury Finds in Favor
of Monsanto in Philadelphia Trial
Today, the jury reached a
verdict in the Young Roundup™ product liability trial before
Judge Angelo Foglietta in the Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas.
In response
to the decision, Monsanto issued the following statement:
“The jury’s verdict in favor
of the Company marks the 14th favorable
outcome in the last 20 trials and validates the Company’s
strategy of taking cases to trial based on strong scientific and
regulatory evidence. The verdict makes clear that the plaintiff
failed to prove that Roundup™ was the cause of the injuries
alleged in this case, consistent with the scientific evidence
and the consensus of regulatory bodies and their scientific
assessments worldwide. While we have great sympathy for anyone
who suffers a loss or injury, the science proves that Roundup™
is not carcinogenic.
“This verdict follows the
favorable ruling from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in
Schaffner v. Monsanto, which unanimously held that the
state-based failure-to-warn claims central to these cases are
expressly preempted by the federal law, since the U.S. EPA has
repeatedly concluded the product does not cause cancer and
approved the product label without any such warning. The Company
is actively taking steps to apply the Schaffner ruling to other
Roundup cases and looks forward to presenting its arguments, as
fully embraced by the Third Circuit, at trial courts, appellate
courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Additionally, outside the
courtroom, we will continue supporting legislation at the state
and federal level alongside hundreds of agricultural
organizations to ensure that any pesticide reviewed and
registered by the U.S. EPA – and sold under a label consistent
with the EPA’s determinations – is sufficient to satisfy
requirements for health and safety warnings. Without legislative
certainty, the litigation industry will continue to target crop
protection tools that have been deemed safe by experts at the
U.S. EPA.
“We continue to stand fully
behind the safety of Roundup™ products – critical tools that
farmers rely on to produce affordable food and feed the world.”
January 03,
2025
Bayer: Federal Court brings an
end to Roundup™ litigation in Australia 薬剤と非ホジキンリンパ腫の間に関係なしとの結論
Federal Court of
Australia discontinues the last pending case /
This follows significant win in first Roundup™
final judgment on non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)
claims outside the U.S. / Prior 322-page ruling
found that scientific evidence does not support
link between glyphosate and NHL / Company
continues to pursue multipronged strategy to
also contain the U.S. litigation
The Federal Court of Australia brought an end to the
last Roundup™ case in Australia, closing all pending injury
litigation there. The Court granted the plaintiffs’ request to
discontinue the Fenton class action
against Monsanto involving allegations related to Roundup™. This
action follows the company’s earlier victory in the
McNickle case in the same court.
McNickle was the first Roundup™
final judgment outside of the United States on the question of
whether glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup™, causes
non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The Court issued a 322-page ruling
finding that the weight of scientific evidence does
not support a link between glyphosate and NHL.
This is an outcome consistent with worldwide regulatory and
scientific assessments, including from the Australian Pesticides and
Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), concluding that glyphosate
is not carcinogenic.
In the United States, Bayer will
continue its multipronged strategy to significantly contain the
Roundup™ litigation. Having achieved favorable outcomes in 15 of the
last 22 trials, the company has a winning record in court and will
continue to try cases, based on the overwhelming scientific and
regulatory evidence in support of the safety of glyphosate.
Additionally, the company will seek U.S. Supreme Court review on the
cross-cutting question of whether all of the state-based warning
claims in this litigation are preempted by federal law, and is
currently evaluating cases to determine the best vehicle for this
appeal. In the meantime, Bayer will consider settlements if they are
in the company’s interest and also continuously evaluates any other
possible means to contain the legal risks.
Together with more than 360
grower and industry groups, Bayer will also continue to engage with
policymakers at the federal and state level for legislative
certainty around labeling in the USA. Without reform, the U.S. risks
the availability of a domestic-produced crop protection tool that
has consistently been found to be safe by regulatory bodies
worldwide. The misapplication of the law by the litigation industry
is driving up the cost of food and threatening its supply.
March 10,
2025
Bayer Threatens to Stop Roundup Weedkiller Sales in US Over Litigation Costs
Bayer has told U.S. lawmakers
it could stop selling Roundup weedkiller unless they can strengthen legal
protection against product liability litigation, according to a financial
analyst and a person close to the matter.
Bayer has paid about $10 billion to settle
disputed claims that Roundup, based on the herbicide glyphosate, causes cancer.
About 67,000 further cases are pending for which the group has set aside $5.9
billion in legal provisions.
The German company has said plaintiffs should
not be able to take Bayer to court by invoking U.S. state rules given the
federal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly labeled the product
as safe to use, as have regulators in other parts of the world.
“Without regulatory clarity (Bayer) will need
to exit the business. Bayer have been clear with legislators and farmer groups
on this,” analysts at brokerage Jefferies said in a note on Thursday, citing
guidance Bayer’s leadership provided in a meeting.
Bayer, which acquired Roundup under the $63
billion takeover of Monsanto in 2018, said: “We are exploring every possibility
to end this litigation.” It declined to comment further.
Disclosing glyphosate sales numbers for the
first time, Bayer on Wednesday said the product, one of the most widely used
weedkillers in U.S. field farming, generated 2.6 billion euros ($2.8 billion) in
revenue last year.
“Bayer could reach a point in the future
where the company is forced to discontinue the sale of the product in the United
States,” a person familiar with the matter told Reuters, requesting anonmyity
because of the sensitivity of the matter.
As it released fourth-quarter earnings on
Wednesday, the company said it was working to “significantly contain” litigation
by 2026.
It has repeatedly said it is working with
farmers’ associations to lobby U.S. federal and state legislators. It is also
preparing to again petition the Supreme Court for legal protection, following a
failed attempt in 2022.
Bayer, however, has not previously threatened
to withdraw the product from the U.S. market, although it replaced glyphosate in
U.S. consumer products with different weedkilling substances.
One of the world’s largest seeds and
pesticides makers, Bayer competes with Corteva , BASF and China’s Syngenta.
It is the only glyphosate producer in the
United States, where the U.S. farming sector, which also imports cheaper generic
glyphosate from China, relies on modified soy and corn that are resistant to its
weedkilling effect.
The glyphosate litigation, which Bayer
inherited from a Monsanto deal that was masterminded by Anderson’s predecessor,
has weighed heavily on the stock, together with factors, including a drug
development setback in 2023 and a weak agriculture markets.
Bayer said at the time of its results release
on Wednesday it would internally separate the glyphosate business from the rest
of the Crop Protection division.
When asked in an analyst call whether the
glyphosate business could be sold, divisional head Rodrigo Santos said: “We’re
going to continue to discuss in the future, evaluating all the alternatives that
we have for the business. That’s always what we do.”
Georgia jury orders Bayer to pay nearly $2.1
billion in Roundup weedkiller lawsuit
A jury in Georgia has ordered Monsanto parent
Bayer to pay nearly $2.1 billion in damages to a man who says the company’s
Roundup weed killer caused his cancer, according to attorneys representing the
plaintiff.
The verdict marks the latest in a long-running
series of court battles Monsanto has faced over its Roundup herbicide. The
agrochemical giant says it will appeal the verdict, reached in a Georgia
courtroom late Friday, in efforts to overturn the decision.
The penalties awarded include $65 million in
compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive
damages, law firms Arnold & Itkin LLP and Kline & Specter PC said in
a statement. That marks one of the largest legal settlements reached in a
Roundup-related case to date.
Plaintiff John Barnes filed his lawsuit
against Monsanto in 2021, seeking damages related to his non-Hodgkin’s
lymphoma. Arnold & Itkin attorney Kyle Findley, the lead trial lawyer on the
case, said the verdict will help put his client in a better position to get
the treatment he needs going forward.
“It’s been a long road for him … and he was
happy that the truth related to the product (has) been exposed,” Findley
told The Associated Press on Sunday. He called the verdict an “important
milestone” after “another example of Monsanto’s refusal to accept
responsibility for poisoning people with this toxic product.”
Germany-based Bayer , which acquired Monsanto in
2018, has continued to dispute claims that Roundup causes cancer. But the
company has been hit with more than 177,000 lawsuits involving the weedkiller
and set aside $16 billion to settle cases.
In a statement, Monsanto said Friday’s verdict
“conflicts with the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence and the consensus
of regulatory bodies and their scientific assessments worldwide.” The company
added that it continues “to stand fully behind the safety” of Roundup products.
For a variety of crops — including corn,
soybeans and cotton — Roundup is designed to work with genetically modified
seeds that resist the weedkiller’s deadly effect. It allows farmers to produce
more while conserving the soil by tilling it less.
Some studies associate Roundup’s key ingredient,
glyphosate, with cancer, although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
said it is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed. Still,
numerous lawsuits over the weedkiller allege glyphosate does cause non-Hodgkin
lymphoma, arguing that Monsanto has failed to warn the public about serious
risks for years.
Findley said that evidence relating to Barnes’
case show “many years of cover-ups” and “backroom dealings.” He accused Monsanto
of ignoring several scientific studies related to the toxicity of Roundup and
said the company “tried to find ways to persuade and distract and deny the
connection between this product and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.”
Friday’s decision marks the fourth
Roundup-related verdict that Findley’s team has won to date — the largest of
which was awarded in Philadelphia in January 2024, with damages totaling $2.25
billion. And he said his law firm has “many more clients who are similarly
situated as Mr. Barnes.”
Monsanto, meanwhile, also maintains that it
“remains committed to trying cases” — and argues its wider record
of Roundup-related litigation continues to reinforce the safety of its products.
The company said it has prevailed in 17 of the last 25 related trials, while
some previous damage awards have been reduced.
Bayer has recently renewed and expanded an
effort across a handful of U.S. states to protect pesticide companies from
claims they failed to warn that a product causes cancer, if labeling otherwise
complies with EPA regulations. The company and other industry supports argue
that litigation costs are unstainable and could impact Roundup’s future
availability. But opponents stress that such legislation would limit
accountability.
April 24, 2025 Bayer
Agricultural Community Applauds
Signing of New North Dakota Bill
With Governor Armstrong’s signature, North
Dakota becomes the first state to fully pass
legislation reaffirming
EPA-backed science
behind crop protection tool safety
Today,
farmers and other members of the
agricultural community praised Governor
Kelly Armstrong and the North Dakota
Legislative Assembly for championing the
tools and technologies essential to
protecting America’s agriculture. The
enactment of HB 1318 makes North Dakota the
first state to
reinforce the authority of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)
science-based rulings that crop protection
products are safe when used as directed.
This new law
is crucial for providing the tools North
Dakota’s farmers rely on to produce
America’s food supply. Without crop
protection tools, America’s consumers could
face higher costs to provide for their
families and put food on the table. By
signing HB 1318, Governor Armstrong is
supporting North Dakota’s farmers, America’s
consumers, and the decades of innovation
that underpin the state’s proud agricultural
history and vibrant economy.
Brian Naber President,
Crop Science
North America &
Australia/ New
Zealand Region
The enactment of this
legislation is the
result of North Dakota’s
lawmakers, commodity
groups, and farmers
coming together to
support the agricultural
industry, which along
with related industries
contribute more than
$14 billion to the
state’s economy. HB 1318
reinforces the integrity
of the regulatory
process, ensuring that
the EPA’s rigorous and
scientifically grounded
conclusions are upheld.
It also provides the
regulatory clarity
necessary for crop
protection products and
for the agricultural
community to thrive.
Crop
protection products have transformed modern
farming by enabling effective and safe weed
management. Glyphosate has undergone
rigorous testing and oversight, with the EPA
and leading regulatory authorities worldwide
consistently affirming its safety when used
as directed. When the EPA makes its
science-based conclusions around a product
label, this new law ensures that stands.
Bayer
hopes the courts will begin applying this
legislation to provide the legal certainty
regarding claims about the health and safety
warning labels on crop protection products.
この法律（House Bill 1318）は、連邦政府の基準に従ってラベル表示された農薬について、製造者が健康リスクに関する警告義務を果たしたと見なすものです。
これにより、特にバイエルが製造する除草剤「ラウンドアップ（Roundup）」に関連するがんリスクに関する警告不足を理由とした訴訟から、同社を保護することを目的としています。
Bayer Says Decision on Whether to Drop Roundup
Coming ‘Within Months’
Chemical giant Bayer, which is facing
hundreds of thousands of lawsuits, says it will make a decision on whether
to continue producing the herbicide Roundup within months. Bayer has
continued to produce the glyphosate spray in spite of pouring billions of
dollars into litigation. Jess Christiansen is Bayer’s head of crop science
and sustainability communications.
“We have paid out over ten billion in
settlements with no admission of fault or guilt. Again, we stand behind the
product. This is part of the litigation industry and the process that we
have to make decisions around, we reserved $16 billion I mean, billion,
that’s just a tremendous amount of money that could otherwise go into our R
and D pipeline.”
Kevin Deinert, president of the South
Dakota Soybean Association, says farmers are at a real disadvantage if they
don’t have access to glyphosate.
“Really pigeon holes us on what we
can do, and really maybe eliminates the profitability of some of that those
acres. So being not having that diversification in our pesticide regime, and
even on the GMO level, that’s going to really hurt.
「（それは）私たちの選択肢を本当に狭めてしまい、一部の農地では利益を上げることができなくなる可能性もあります。つまり、農薬の使用体系における多様性がなくなること、さらには遺伝子組み換え作物の面でも多様性がなくなることは、私たちにとって大きな打撃となるでしょう。」
Ag leaders point to EPA testing that has
declared glyphosate safe. Chandler Goule, CEO of the National Association of
Wheat Growers, says claims to the contrary are unscientific.
“So when you really look at the pros
and cons of glyphosate, the list of pros is
significantly longer than the short list of concerns that have no
science basis of the concerns that they continue to put out.”
Bayer has stood by the safety of Roundup,
but has paid more than ten billion to plaintiffs in litigation claiming
Roundup as the cause of their cancer.
“But at the end of the day, we have
to make the right business decisions, because,
again, if you look at the math, you know you don’t have to be an MBA to
understand that that’s not a good business model today. You know we’re
losing money on Roundup.”
A decision on whether to keep Roundup in
production could come before the 2026 planting season.
Bayer is preparing a plan to settle some of
its mass lawsuits over Roundup weedkiller in Missouri, and may also seek
bankruptcy for its Monsanto unit if the effort fails, the Wall Street Journal
reported, citing sources.
The German pharmaceutical and biotechnology
group has paid about $10 billion to settle disputed claims that Roundup, based
on the herbicide glyphosate, causes cancer. About 67,000 further cases are
pending for which the group has set aside $5.9 billion in legal provisions.
Bayer has engaged advisers from law firm
Latham & Watkins and consultancy AlixPartners to examine its options, the
Journal said May 15, adding that a Chapter 11 filing by Monsanto would pause
lawsuits against the division and open a path to settling its share of
Roundup-related liability in bankruptcy court.
Reuters could not immediately confirm the
report.
Bayer, Latham & Watkins and AlixPartners did
not immediately respond to Reuters’ requests for comment.
Last month, Bayer petitioned the U.S. Supreme
Court to restrict claims linking its Roundup weedkiller to cancer, aiming to
avert billions in potential damages. The company said this week a decision could
come as early as next month.
The group acquired Roundup through its $63
billion purchase of U.S. agrochemical firm Monsanto in 2018.
Bayer has since seen struggles with
glyphosate litigations, a 2023 development setback for its most promising
experimental medicine, weak agriculture markets and pressure from some investors
to separate or sell businesses.
Bayer May Exit Glyphosate Business Amid
Mounting Legal Pressure
Billions in Lawsuits Push Company to
Rethink Its Role in Herbicide Market
After years of mounting legal battles and
costly settlements, Bayer is signaling
it may soon
exit the glyphosate business.
Company executives, including CEO Bill Anderson,
have issued stark warnings to investors that the ongoing litigation tied to
the herbicide Roundup could force a major strategic
retreat.
In a recent call with shareholders,
Anderson explained that despite meeting federal regulatory requirements,
pesticide producers in the U.S. remain legally vulnerable.
“There is no broad protection,” he said, noting that even full compliance
with EPA labeling does not shield manufacturers from
failure-to-warn lawsuits.
Originally introduced by
Monsanto in the 1970s, glyphosate quickly became the most widely
used herbicide in the world. It was a cornerstone of
the agricultural weed control toolkit. But after Bayer acquired Monsanto in
2018, it also inherited thousands of lawsuits alleging that glyphosate
exposure causes cancer—claims Bayer continues to contest.
Bayer has already
removed glyphosate from consumer
herbicide products sold in the U.S.
Now, the company says litigation may undermine its ability to provide glyphosate-based products to farmers and
other professional users as well.
The potential move would mark a dramatic
shift in global agriculture and could have far-reaching implications for crop management, weed control practices,
and the future of chemical regulation.
German conglomerate Bayer on Wednesday said it will sell a new
soybean product called
Intacta 5+ for farmers in Brazil, the world's largest exporter and
producer of the oilseed, as it seeks to perpetuate the use of genetically
engineered seeds in the South American country.
Bayer in a statement said commercial varieties with the new biotechnology are
expected to be ready for the 2027/28 crop season, pending regulatory approvals
and business decisions in Brazil and abroad.
Intacta 5+ seeds are the first technology in Brazil
with tolerance to five herbicides: mesotrione, dicamba,
glyphosate, glufosinate, and 2,4-D, Bayer said. The new seed also offers
protection against certain caterpillars that can damage soy plants, the company
added.
Brazilian farmers have embraced genetically modified
seeds, and their rapid adoption in recent decades has been credited as a
major contributor to yield growth for various Brazilian crops.
According to a November 2024 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Foreign Agricultural Service, Brazil is the second-largest producer of biotech
crops in the world, behind the United States.
For the 2024/2025 crop season, the report said Brazil was forecast to sow 68.5
million hectares (169.3 million acres) with genetically engineered traits.
Adoption rates for soybeans and cotton have reached 99%, while for corn the rate
is 95%, the report said.
The new seeds bring "an important genetic advancement that will help farmers
face current and future agricultural challenges,” said Marcio Santos, CEO of
Bayer's crop division in Brazil.
Bayer's Intacta technology is responsible for adding 21.2 million metric tons to
soybean production in Brazil over the last 10 years, the company said, citing a
study by agribusiness consultancy Agroconsult.
Trump administration backs Bayer's bid to curb Roundup lawsuits
President Donald Trump's administration
urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to take up Bayer’s bid to curtail
thousands of lawsuits claiming its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer,
backing the company’s argument that federal law bars the claims.
In a brief filed at the court, U.S.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer bolstered Bayer’s effort to limit the
lawsuits and potentially avert billions of dollars in damages, saying
the company was correct that the federal law governing pesticides
preempts lawsuits that make claims over the products under state law.
Bayer has asked the justices to hear
its appeal of a lower court's decision to uphold a $1.25 million verdict
awarded by a St. Louis jury in a Missouri state court case in which a
plaintiff named John Durnell sued after being diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma he attributed to his exposure to Roundup. Bayer is facing more than
67,000 such lawsuits in U.S. state and federal courts.
The German pharmaceutical and biotechnology
company, which acquired Roundup as part of its $63 billion purchase of
agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018, has said that decades of studies have
shown Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are safe for human use.
LABEL FIGHT
Sauer told the justices that upholding the
lower court's decision would allow juries to second-guess the science-based
judgments of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
"EPA has repeatedly determined that
glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans, and the agency has
repeatedly approved Roundup labels that did not contain cancer warnings,"
Sauer said in the brief.
"Where, as here, EPA has specified the
health warnings that should appear on a particular pesticide’s label, a
manufacturer should not be left subject" to state labeling regimes each
prescribing different requirements, Sauer said.
The brief comes as the Trump administration
— which has aimed to address concerns from agricultural groups about
potential restrictions on agrochemicals — must also contend with supporters
of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, who have highlighted possible
health risks associated with pesticides.
This entrepreneur is betting on one of the tiniest living things on Earth to
help build a cleaner future: algae.
Bayer's effort has drawn support from
pro-business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which said that
allowing Bayer to face this liability opens up many corporations that follow
federal law to litigation.
Lawyers for Durnell asked the Supreme Court
to turn away Bayer's appeal. They said the plaintiff relied on Bayer's
advertising and not just the label when he chose to use Roundup, and the
company's marketing failed to warn consumers of the product's risks.
The U.S. Supreme Court asked the Trump
administration in June for its views in the case.
MIXED RECORD
Roundup is among the most widely used
weedkillers in the United States.
The company has paid about $10 billion to
settle most of the Roundup lawsuits that were pending as of 2020, but failed
to get a settlement covering future cases. New lawsuits have continued to
pour in since then. Plaintiffs have said they developed non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma and other forms of cancer due to using Roundup, either at home or
on the job.
The company has had a mixed record at trial
in the Roundup lawsuits. Bayer has prevailed in a series of Roundup trials,
but it was also hit with large jury awards in the past few years, including
a $2.1 billion verdict in a case in the U.S. state of Georgia in March.
Bayer settled the Georgia case and three
others that had been on appeal in November.
Bayer has threatened to withdraw Roundup
from the U.S. market as it fights the litigation. The company replaced
glyphosate in U.S. consumer products with different weedkilling substances.
December 02,
2025
Bayer welcomes
Solicitor General support for U.S. Supreme Court review
Company
continues to advance multi-pronged
strategy to significantly contain the
litigation by the end of 2026
Bayer is pleased the Solicitor General supports U. S.
Supreme Court review of the petition for a writ of
certiorari in the Durnell case and agrees with the company’s
arguments on preemption. The company believes that the
backing of the U.S. government will be important to the
Court’s consideration of its petition. The split among
federal circuit courts in the Roundup™ personal injury
litigation, on the cross-cutting question of whether federal
law preempts state claims based on failure-to-warn theories,
warrants review and resolution by the country’s top court.
17 Feb 2026
Bayer
agrees to pay $7.25bn to settle Roundup weedkiller cancer lawsuits
Thousands of lawsuits accuse the
agrochemical maker of failing to warn people that its weedkiller could
cause cancer
The
agrochemical maker
Bayer and attorneys for cancer patients announced a proposed
$7.25bn settlement on Tuesday to resolve thousands of US
lawsuits alleging the company failed to warn people that its
popular weedkiller Roundup could cause cancer.
The
proposed settlement comes as the US supreme court is preparing
to hear arguments on Bayer’s assertion that the Environmental
Protection Agency’s approval of Roundup without a cancer warning
should invalidate claims filed in state courts. That case would
not be affected by the proposed settlement.
But the
settlement would eliminate some of the risk from an eventual and
uncertain supreme court ruling – both for Bayer and for patients
seeking damages.
Germany-based Bayer, which acquired the Roundup maker Monsanto
in 2018, disputes the assertion that the weedkiller’s key
ingredient, glyphosate, can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma. But the
company has warned that mounting legal costs are threatening its
ability to continue selling the product in US agricultural
markets.
“Litigation uncertainty has plagued the company for years, and
this settlement gives the company a road to closure,” Bayer’s
CEO, Bill Anderson, said on Tuesday.
The
proposed settlement was filed in St Louis circuit court in
Missouri, home to Bayer’s North America crop science division
and the state where many of the lawsuits have been brought. The
settlement still needs the court’s approval.
"This is a choice for speed and containment
over a protracted legal battle," CEO Bill Anderson said Tuesday, describing the
agreement as a pivotal step toward limiting long-running litigation tied to the
herbicide.
Bayer said it is increasing its total
litigation reserves to nearly $12 billion and expects about $6 billion in legal
payouts in 2026 alone — enough to push free cash flow into negative territory
this year.
2026/2/23
Bayer proposes $7.25 billion Roundup settlement
Agrochemical
maker Bayer and attorneys for cancer
patients announced a proposed $7.25 billion
settlement Feb. 17 to resolve thousands of
U.S. lawsuits alleging the company failed to
warn people that its popular weedkiller
Roundup could cause cancer,
according to the Associated Press.
The proposed
settlement comes as
the U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear
arguments in April on Bayer’s
assertion the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s approval of Roundup without a
cancer warning should invalidate claims
filed in state courts.
The case would not be affected by the
proposed settlement.
The
settlement is designed to resolve eligible
current and future Roundup claims through a
long-term claims program.
“The proposed class
settlement agreement, together with the
Supreme Court case, provides an essential
path out of the litigation uncertainty and
enables us to devote our full attention to
furthering the innovations that lie at the
core of our mission: health for all, hunger
for none,” said Bayer CEO Bill Anderson.
“This litigation and the resulting cost
underscore the need for guidance from the
Supreme Court on clear regulation in
American agriculture.”
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled
in favor of Bayer’s subsidiary Monsanto, stating that the company
cannot be sued for failing to warn of weedkiller Roundup’s cancer
risks. The 7-2 decision is expected to block thousands of lawsuits
against the company.
The Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)—which gives the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority over pesticide
registration, sale, and use—sat at the heart of the Monsanto v.
Durnell case. The court considered whether the federal law preempts
state claims that the company failed to warn of Roundup’s risks.
The World Health
Organization classifies glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup,
as a
probable human carcinogen. But the EPA states that it is safe
when used as directed and does not require a cancer warning label.
Offering the majority
opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh writes that, under FIFRA, this
means states can’t impose labeling requirements that differ from the
federal agency’s.
Justice Ketanji Brown
Jackson wrote the dissent, stating, “FIFRA expressly limits States’
authority to regulate pesticide labels, but it does not eliminate
that authority.” Jackson was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Missouri resident John
Durnell filed the case after he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma,
which he ties to his years of applying Roundup in his community’s
parks. In 2019, Durnell was awarded US$1.25 million by a jury when
the court ruled that Bayer did not warn of the cancer risks
associated with the product. Durnell’s case was appealed, however,
and he never received the money.
“In accepting
Monsanto’s argument and holding that Durnell’s failure-to-warn claim
is preempted, the Court misunderstands FIFRA’s requirements,
misinterprets the scope of FIFRA’s preemption, and ultimately leaves
Durnell without a remedy for the significant harms he has suffered,”
Jackson states.
Similar lawsuits
pending against Monsanto likely will not move forward as a result of
the Supreme Court’s decision, investigative journalist Carey Gillam
reports. It will also make it more difficult for people to hold
companies accountable when their products pose any kind of danger to
the public.
“There are thousands of
cases that are like mine that will not see court now,”
says Durnell. “So that is the biggest disappointment for me.”
Environmental and
agricultural advocacy groups expressed disappointment with the
ruling, saying that it goes against scientific evidence of the
herbicide’s risks. Food & Water Watch calls the decision “a disaster
for public health” and states, “Once again, the Supreme Court has
sided with big business over people and the environment.”
Monsanto v. Durnell
訴訟の焦点となったのは、農薬の登録・販売・使用に関する権限を米環境保護庁（EPA）に与える「連邦殺虫剤・殺菌剤・殺鼠剤法（FIFRA）」。裁判所は、ラウンドアップのリスクに関する警告を怠ったとする州法に基づく主張に対し、連邦法であるFIFRAが優先されるかどうかを審理した。
環境保護団体や農業関連の擁護団体は、この判決が当該除草剤のリスクに関する科学的証拠に反するものであるとして、失望を表明した。団体「Food
& Water
Watch」はこの決定を「公衆衛生にとっての惨事」と呼び、「最高裁はまたしても、人々や環境よりも大企業の側に立った」と述べている。
ーーー
June 25, 2026 Bayer
発表
Monsanto wins landmark
Roundup™ case at U.S. Supreme Court
Ruling should
help significantly contain litigation by
preempting conflicting state-law- based warning
claims / Decision provides regulatory clarity
for crop input producers, American farmers and
consumers, and enhances food security and
affordability
Leverkusen, June 25, 2026
– The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 7:2 landmark ruling in the Durnell
Roundup™ case on Thursday, affirming that the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempts
state-law-based failure-to-warn claims when the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has made a definitive determination on
product safety. This decision, which reflects strong support across
the ideological spectrum of the Court, helps to bring significant
containment to the Roundup™ litigation. Glyphosate remains the most
studied crop protection tool in the world and this decision affirms
that the EPA’s safety determination is the law of the land, ensuring
that companies cannot be punished under a patchwork of state tort
laws for complying with federal labeling requirements.
“This decision is good for American
farmers who help feed the world. It provides the regulatory clarity
necessary for innovators like us to develop the agricultural tools
that guarantee an affordable food supply,” said Bayer CEO Bill
Anderson. "This litigation has enormous costs for the company and
has impacted public trust. The decision brings overdue justice on an
issue that should have been clarified much earlier. It’s time to put
it behind us. Strengthened by this ruling, we continue to pursue our
multi-pronged containment strategy, which includes the previously
announced class settlement.”
The majority opinion states:
“Durnell’s state law failure-to-warn claim would require a cancer
warning on Roundup’s label — a requirement ‘in addition to’ and
‘different from’ the label required by EPA under FIFRA. FIFRA
therefore expressly preempts Durnell’s claim.”
Impact of the Ruling
The holding in Durnell should
result in the dismissal of current warnings-based claims and
foreclose future claims based on state-failure-to-warn theories,
which make up the vast majority of claims in the litigation to date.
In February 2026, along with
class counsel, Monsanto announced a proposed U.S. nationwide class
settlement designed to resolve current and future Roundup™ claims
alleging non-Hodgkin lymphoma injuries through a long-term
compensation program. Monsanto previously explained that the class
settlement and Supreme Court strategies were independently necessary
and mutually reinforcing elements of the company’s multi-pronged
containment strategy. Together with today’s positive ruling, the
class – which has received preliminary approval – will help ensure
that Monsanto can significantly contain this litigation.
Good for farmers, food
security, and American consumers
For years, American farmers have
operated under a cloud of legal uncertainty created not by science,
but by the litigation industry. Glyphosate-based herbicides are a
foundation of modern, sustainable agriculture. Their safe and
effective use supports food security, keeps production costs
affordable, makes no-till, sustainable farm practices possible, and
allows farmers to do more with less. This ruling restores the
regulatory clarity that the agricultural sector, the broader food
supply chain, and American consumers deserve after nearly a decade
of well-funded attacks by the plaintiffs’ bar. It also provides an
opportunity to restore public trust in the scientific consensus on
the safety of glyphosate-based herbicides. The studies reviewed by
regulatory authorities on glyphosate’s safety in connection with
recent registration reviews are publicly available at www.bayer.com/en/glyphosate-studies
Court clarifies law that
supports science
The EPA has repeatedly and
unequivocally determined that glyphosate is not likely to be
carcinogenic. Every leading independent regulatory body worldwide
that has conducted its own review of glyphosate safety — from the
European Food Safety Authority to regulators across Asia and Latin
America — has reached the same conclusion. This is not the judgment
of any single agency or administration; it is the settled consensus
of the world's foremost scientific experts.
What has challenged this
consensus is not new evidence — instead, it is largely a single,
decade-old report from the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) used in courtrooms by plaintiffs’ attorneys, despite
the fact that every leading regulator in the world that has examined
IARC’s report disagrees with its conclusions. Allowing this outlier
report to override the expert determinations of federal regulatory
agencies and scientists, despite the express uniformity requirements
of federal law, has led to a patchwork of jury-by-jury requirements
and uncertainties for manufacturers, farmers, and consumers alike.
This decision restores the integrity of the scientific regulatory
process and the independence of the experts within it.
The long road to this moment
This litigation has spanned
years, consumed enormous resources, and distracted from what the
company does best — promoting Health for all, Hunger for none. Many
billions have been directed toward the Roundup™ litigation — money
that could have funded the next generation of sustainable crop
protection tools, breakthrough therapies, or other advances that
farmers, consumers, and patients urgently need. These litigation
costs diminish investments in innovation and are borne not just by
the company, but by every patient waiting for a new therapy, every
farmer waiting for a better tool, and every shareholder whose
capital was diverted. Today marks the beginning of a new chapter in
Health for all, Hunger for none.