The long-running legal fight over Bayer’s weedkiller Roundup has seen nearly 200,000 cancer claims filed in US courts over the past seven years and is now being turned into a political tug of war.
In prior Roundup lawsuits, the US Justice Department under former President Joe Biden, had argued that consumers should be allowed to pursue damages against Germany’s chemical giant, with most claims involving non‑Hodgkin lymphoma after long-term exposure to the pesticide.
Earlier this month, however, President Donald Trump’s administration reversed course. After the US Supreme Court sought the Solicitor General’s view, the Justice Department sided with Bayer and urged limits on the tens of thousands of outstanding claims.
Bayer has already paid out around $10 billion (€8.53 billion) to settle disputed cancer claims in the US. In July, the firm said it would set aside a further €1.2 billion ($1.41 billion), much of it for compensation.
Bayer acquired Roundup in 2018 as part of its $63 billion purchase of Monsanto, the US agribusiness giant best known for genetically modified seeds and controversial agrochemicals.
Policy change sets up states vs federal battle
Biden’s Justice Department had argued that federal pesticide law does not shield Bayer from state‑court lawsuits, since liability and consumer protection are traditionally matters for individual states.
Plaintiffs — from farmers to home gardeners — brought claims under their own state rules, alleging that Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, causes cancer and that Bayer failed to provide adequate warnings.
US federal law sets national standards for pesticide approval, but does not override states’ public‑safety powers. So even with glyphosate approved by the federal regulator, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), people could still sue if they believed Bayer’s labeling was misleading.
Lawsuits labeled a costly drag on the industry
By contrast, the Trump administration has now urged the Supreme Court to accept Bayer’s argument that federal law preempts such lawsuits, effectively narrowing the scope for the 65,000 remaining plaintiffs.
Supporters of federal preemption say it creates consistent national rules for pesticide labels, avoiding confusion from varying state requirements and supporting the EPA’s central role in regulating safety.
Trump’s team has also reframed the Roundup litigation as an unnecessary burden on business, as it exposes Bayer to massive, unpredictable liabilities even when the EPA has approved its products.
Critics denounced Trump’s position as advancing corporate agendas at the expense of justice for the vast number of claimants, many of whom report terminal or severely disabling conditions.
“This trend of restricting citizens’ rights by extreme right-wing governments [like Trump’s] is … frightening,” Martin Dermine, executive director of PAN Europe, a network of NGOs working to eliminate hazardous pesticides and promote sustainable agriculture, told DW.
Other opponents of Trump’s latest move argue the reversal shows a failure to protect public health and weakens state-level authority, stripping local courts of their power to hold corporations accountable.
Bayer urges speedy end to controversy
Bayer has lobbied US legislators over the mass lawsuits and petitioned Supreme Court justices to review a ruling by a court in Missouri that upheld a $1.25 million jury award to John Durnell, who claimed his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was caused by exposure to the weedkiller.
The German pharmaceutical and biotechnology giant has cited decades of studies that it says show Roundup is safe for human use. This argument was, however, weakened when a key review paper from 2000, often cited in defense of glyphosate’s safety, was retracted earlier this month due to undisclosed ghostwriting by Monsanto and other ethical issues.
Even so, the vast majority of regulatory bodies worldwide still classify glyphosate as noncarcinogenic when used as directed.
Bayer’s CEO, Bill Anderson, warned the firm may stop selling Roundup in the US if the lawsuits can’t be resolved soon. Anderson told an event by the US news site Axios in May that the weedkiller is “table stakes” [indispensable] in the fight against global food insecurity.
He recently welcomed Trump’s policy reversal, adding: “The stakes could not be higher as the misapplication of federal law jeopardizes the availability of innovative tools for farmers and investments in the broader US economy.”
Supreme Court ruling could limit future claims
US Supreme Court justices must now decide whether to hear Bayer’s petition. If accepted, a ruling by mid-2026 will determine whether the German company wins sweeping legal protection.
Mary J. Davis, dean at the University of Kentucky’s Rosenberg College of Law, explained that the court is reflecting on its own decision from 20 years ago on US federal pesticide law.
In that 2005 ruling, the justices said federal rules control what warnings must appear on pesticide labels and that states cannot demand different or extra warnings. However, this does not automatically stop all state-level lawsuits against companies like Bayer for failing to warn about risks.
“The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is not particularly clear on the scope of state law,” Davis told DW. “There is a pretty good chance that the court may want to clarify how that law works.”
A favorable ruling could potentially save the company billions from outstanding claims. It could also make it harder for consumers to file lawsuits over harmful products and sharply limit compensation claims.
Davis, a leading products‑liability scholar whose career includes decades of research on federal supremacy in legal cases, put the stakes for Bayer bluntly:
“If this case does not get heard by the Supreme Court and decided in the company’s favor, there will be many more years of litigation,” she told DW.
No matter the outcome, Chris Hilson, professor of law and climate change at the UK’s University of Reading, cautioned that the Roundup lawsuits may prove to be “just the start” of a broader wave of litigation against the agri-food sector.
“Climate litigation has so far mainly targeted the energy transition, with fossil fuel companies in the firing line,” Hilson told DW. “We can expect to see more court cases brought by the environmental movement, on both climate and biodiversity and human health grounds.”
Bayer’s case is being closely watched in Europe, where the European Union has extended glyphosate’s approval until 2033 despite fierce opposition from environmental groups. Some EU member states, including France and Austria, continue to push for stricter limits or outright bans.
Edited by: Uwe Hessler
