Bayer has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stop lawsuits alleging its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer, arguing that federal pesticide laws override state warnings.
David A. Lieb reports for The Associated Press.
In short:
- Bayer wants the Supreme Court to rule that federal pesticide labeling preempts state failure-to-warn lawsuits, citing a Missouri case where a man won $1.25 million after developing cancer from Roundup.
- The company is backing legislation in states like Georgia, Missouri, Iowa, and Tennessee to limit legal claims against pesticide makers by codifying federal labeling as sufficient.
- Bayer faces about 181,000 claims and has removed glyphosate from residential Roundup products, though it remains in use for agriculture; the company warns lawsuits could endanger future innovation in farming.
Key quote:
“The reality is they don’t want to put the warning on it because they’re afraid” that if people “realize it’s unsafe, it will reduce sales.”
— Jim Onder, attorney for plaintiffs suing Bayer
Why this matters:
Despite Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto and its continued defense of glyphosate’s safety, courts have awarded billions in damages to individuals who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after long-term exposure. Bayer has sought to preempt future lawsuits through legislative lobbying and legal maneuvers. Meanwhile, glyphosate remains deeply entrenched in the U.S. agricultural system, applied to millions of acres of corn, soy, and other crops. For exposed workers and residents, the implications go beyond personal health: They touch on trust in institutions, the transparency of scientific evaluation, and whether chemical policy in America prioritizes people or profits. As lawsuits continue to unfold and some states push for stricter regulation, the outcome could reshape the boundaries of corporate responsibility and how environmental risks are addressed nationwide.
Related coverage:
