U.S. News: Court Sides with Bayer in Roundup Case --- Win gives company boost in resolving claims its weedkiller has caused cancer

 

Is glyphosate banned in some places of the EU? Why?

 

Glyphosate is not fully banned in the EU. In late 2023, the European Commission renewed its market approval for 10 years, meaning its agricultural use is authorized until December 15, 2033. However, its use remains highly restricted and controversial.

The debates and partial bans in Europe stem from several major concerns:

•           Health Hazards: In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization (WHO), classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans".

•           Environmental Impact: Environmental and health NGOs argue that glyphosate damages biodiversity, harms non-target insects, and contaminates groundwater and soil.

•           Food Traceability: Pre-harvest spraying has led to trace amounts of the chemical showing up in consumer products (like bread and beer), which raises widespread consumer anxiety over food purity. Pre-harvest spraying kills the crops all at once making the harvesting easier, using even short good weather intervals.

Despite the EU-level approval, the ongoing controversy has led several member states to restrict its use:

•           Household/Private Bans: Countries like France, Belgium, and the Netherlands have banned the sale and use of glyphosate for private citizens and domestic gardeners.

•           Public Space Restrictions: Germany and others have banned its use in public parks and sensitive areas.

•           Legal Challenges: A coalition of environmental groups has taken the European Commission to court in an effort to overturn the 10-year renewal, arguing it violates EU safety laws.

 

“The Supreme Court ruled for Bayer in its fight against claims that it failed to warn consumers that Roundup causes cancer, boosting the company's efforts to resolve litigation over its weedkiller.

 

In a 7-2 decision on Thursday, the court said the pharmaceutical and agriculture company can't be held liable under state law for failing to warn about the alleged risk when a federal regulator -- the Environmental Protection Agency -- didn't require the product to carry a warning label.

 

Bayer, which has been engulfed in litigation over Roundup since acquiring Monsanto in 2018, argued the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act -- which establishes a regulatory scheme for labeling weed-killing chemicals and similar pesticides -- prohibits states from imposing different or additional warnings than those required under federal law.

 

A ruling against Bayer would require the company to add a cancer warning to Roundup's label even though federal law requires it to use the EPA-approved label without a cancer warning, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court. The goal of the federal law -- to create a uniform labeling system -- "would otherwise be impossible to achieve," he said.

 

A Bayer spokesperson said Thursday's decision was "good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation. It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles."

 

It is a victory for Bayer Chief Executive Bill Anderson, who took over the German conglomerate in 2023 with a mandate to help steer it through the litigation. Securing a win at the Supreme Court, along with settlement efforts, is crucial to the company's strategy to move past the Roundup legal woes.

 

Bayer, which produces about half the world's glyphosate, has said it could stop producing the chemical if it can't get the litigation under control.

 

The company's stock, which trades in Germany, jumped about 19% on Thursday. Investor optimism that Bayer would be able to reduce its legal exposure had sent the company's stock up about 50% over the past 12 months before Thursday.

 

Bayer has maintained that Roundup is safe to use. The EPA has determined it isn't likely to be carcinogenic in humans and doesn't need a label that includes a cancer warning.

 

The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer, however, classified glyphosate, its active ingredient, as "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015.

 

Monsanto introduced Roundup to the market in 1974 and revolutionized agriculture by developing biotech crop seeds built to withstand the herbicide.

 

When Bayer bought the U.S. company in a $63 billion deal in 2018, it was confronted with a wave of Roundup litigation that has ballooned to include thousands of cases filed in courts around the U.S. That legal risk has long weighed on Bayer's shares.

 

Bayer has said it intends to try to get its Roundup litigation in check this year. The company is also working to get a $7.5 billion proposed settlement with plaintiffs approved that would help resolve its litigation crisis, with the exception of a few pending court cases.

 

The company recently secured a victory from a federal judge in St. Louis who sent Bayer's proposed settlement back to state court, overruling objections from plaintiffs who wanted it to be transferred to federal court. Some analysts said that decision gives Bayer a higher likelihood of having its settlement approved.

 

The Supreme Court ruling is a blow to plaintiffs' lawyers who had opposed Bayer's settlement plan, and improves the chances of securing the deal, legal analysts said. The court's decision "should strongly incentivize plaintiffs to participate in Bayer's settlement as their cases have now been massively weakened," said Tom Claps, managing director of legal and regulatory analysis at the Gordon Haskett advisory firm.

 

The company's appeal to the Supreme Court stemmed from a case brought by John Durnell, a Missouri gardener who sued Monsanto in 2019 under the state law for not warning him about the dangers of glyphosate, which he alleges caused him to develop non-Hodgkins lymphoma. A jury awarded him $1.25 million in damages.

 

The Durnell verdict is one of several multimillion-dollar awards against the company in the Roundup cases that have gone to trial.

 

Some of the other early trials have ended in verdicts for the defense.

 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who dissented in the decision, said ruling against Durnell leaves him "without a remedy for the significant harms he has suffered."

 

Durnell's claim doesn't conflict with the federal law because EPA approval doesn't create a labeling requirement, she wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, making for unusual alignment of two justices typically on opposing sides of the court.

 

The court's ruling could help pave the way for the dismissal of thousands of claims against Bayer. Some plaintiffs could refile their cases, but it would eliminate a key argument about the alleged failure to warn.

 

The decision is also a significant blow for anti-pesticide groups, including advocates in the Make America Healthy Again coalition who have urged the Trump administration to reduce the country's reliance on glyphosate.

 

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a former plaintiffs' lawyer, in 2018 was part of a legal team that won a $289 million verdict on behalf of a groundskeeper who blamed Roundup for his cancer. Kennedy has been a critic of glyphosate but, in recent months, defended the Trump administration's embrace of it, citing national-security reasons.” [1]

 

1. U.S. News: Court Sides With Bayer in Roundup Case --- Win gives company boost in resolving claims its weedkiller has caused cancer. Wheeler, Lydia; Thomas, Patrick.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 26 June 2026: A4.