North Dakota has enacted an unprecedented law that may protect Bayer, an agrochemical manufacturer, from lawsuits involving its weedkiller Roundup, which some claim is connected to cancer risks. Although the state’s rural setting suggests a limited immediate impact, Bayer hopes this legislative victory will inspire similar actions in other regions. Currently, Bayer is confronted with numerous lawsuits demanding large sums for alleged health damages caused by Roundup. A similar legal proposal has surfaced in Georgia, awaiting decision from Governor Brian Kemp.
The German-based Bayer acquired Roundup following its acquisition of Monsanto in 2018. The firm maintains that glyphosate, a crucial component of Roundup, has been a safe and effective means of combating weeds and reducing soil erosion for many years. This herbicide is particularly beneficial with genetically engineered seeds designed to withstand glyphosate’s impact, which has become essential for crops like corn, soybeans, and cotton.
Bayer’s North American crop science leader, Brian Naber, expressed appreciation for North Dakota’s legal support, suggesting that without effective agricultural chemicals, food costs may escalate significantly. Governor Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota signed the bill, albeit without making any public statements.
The company has faced around 181,000 legal actions alleging glyphosate in Roundup as a cause of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. While scientific opinions vary on glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has deemed it unlikely to cause cancer when used correctly. Bayer refutes the health risk allegations and has allied with agricultural interest groups, promoting legislation in at least 11 states to counter these legal claims by affirming the sufficiency of federally approved pesticide labels.
With the North Dakota law set to come into force on August 1, the Modern Ag Alliance, an organization supported by Bayer, has hailed it as a blueprint for other states. Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, speaking for the alliance, argued the legislation offers significant compliance ease for U.S. farmers.
However, critics like Sam Wagner from the Dakota Resource Council label the new law harmful, fearing it could restrict the ability to sue pesticide producers effectively. Jay Feldman from Beyond Pesticides argues that such laws, compounded by the broader rollbacks of federal regulations, may leave affected individuals unable to pursue compensation for damages. He cautions against the overshadowing of consumer safety by industry-friendly regulatory frameworks, claiming they should not serve as shields for chemical companies.