JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The German company Bayer is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to determine if federal legislation overrides numerous state lawsuits which claim that it failed to caution users about potential cancer risks associated with their well-known weedkiller, Roundup. Bayer is simultaneously advocating for state-level legislation that would provide a legal barrier against lawsuits related to Roundup, aiming to secure the future of American agriculture while maintaining that their product does not pose cancer risks. The company, however, has allocated $16 billion to resolve these cases.
In its latest court submission, Bayer requested that the Supreme Court review a Missouri case that resulted in a $1.25 million award to a man developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma following exposure to Roundup. While the federal label for Roundup does not contain cancer warnings, Bayer asserts that federal pesticide guidelines should prevent states from imposing their own labeling requirements, thereby disallowing state-based failure-to-warn lawsuits.
Notably, the Supreme Court previously declined to review a similar legal matter from California, which resulted in an $86 million award to a couple. Nevertheless, Bayer insists on intervention by the Supreme Court due to varying decisions from lower courts. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Bayer, whereas the 9th and 11th Circuits opposed their viewpoint.
Jim Onder, lawyer for the St. Louis gardener, accused Bayer of trying to sidestep responsibility. He suggested Bayer fears a potential decline in sales if consumers become aware of health risks. Over 181,000 claims have been filed against Bayer, primarily from non-commercial users, bolstering the firm’s decision to cease using glyphosate in the U.S. for residential products while continuing its application in agricultural contexts due to its efficiency.
Bayer warns of possibly retracting glyphosate from the U.S. agricultural market if these lawsuits continue. Communications leader for Bayer’s crop science division, Jess Christiansen, emphasized the potential negative impact on agricultural innovation if such litigation continues.
The company has lobbied for legislative support in various states. Georgia recently enacted legislation supported by Bayer, deeming federal pesticide labels adequate, pending the governor’s approval. Meanwhile, a jury in Georgia awarded nearly $2.1 billion to a man associating his cancer with Roundup.
Tennessee’s Senate and North Dakota’s House passed similar protective legislation for pesticide corporations, which is now being considered within their respective state chambers. Missouri and Iowa, vital to Bayer’s operations, have also been legislative focal points. Missouri’s Republican majority in the House approved the bill, but it faces opposition in the Senate. State Senator Nick Schroer argued that granting legal immunity to pesticide producers violates the public’s trust.
In Iowa, although the Senate supported the legislation, the Iowa House did not push it forward, lacking support within the Republican caucus. Environmental advocates strongly opposed such measures, branding them as “cancer gag acts” for potentially restricting accountability for harmful impacts of pesticides. During protests at Iowa’s capitol, participants shared personal stories of relatives battling cancer across the state.