The push is on by Bayer, farm groups and state lawmakers across the country to end the flood of Roundup product-liability cases that at last count — according to a recent court filing by the company — number more than 100,000.
On May 12, Georgia became the second state to pass a bill that protects pesticide manufacturers from liability if their products contain labels approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. North Dakota was the first state to pass such a law.
“At Bayer, we are committed to developing agricultural innovations that help farmers thrive,” the company said on Monday after the news broke in Georgia.
“This is important not only for Georgia’s farmers and American agriculture but also the everyday American worried about the cost of groceries, which could increase if these vital tools went away. We hope states around the country considering similar legislation will also support farmers and the tools critical to their success.”
Similar measures either were or continue to be under consideration in Florida, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Wyoming, Brigit Rollins, staff attorney with the National Ag Law Center, told DTN. Read about that here: https://nationalaglawcenter.org/….
In addition, Bayer has asked the Supreme Court to get involved.
In April, Bayer filed an appeal to the court and argues that because there is a circuit-court split on the question of whether federal labeling laws preempt state labeling laws, the high court needs to resolve that split.
Agriculture groups at the end of last week filed amicus briefs in support of Bayer’s position, as there is a perceived risk to farmers of eventually losing glyphosate-based Roundup as a tool to combat weeds. An amicus brief is a legal document filed by a third party not directly involved in a case, providing more information to the court that might be helpful in rendering a decision.
The lawsuits are based on alleged failure-to-warn claims by individual plaintiffs that say glyphosate in Roundup caused their cancer.
Bayer asked the Supreme Court for a review based on a circuit court split on whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, preempts the state-law failure-to-warn claims.
The petition filed on April 4, 2025, was in response to the verdict in Durnell v Monsanto. In the case the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a $1.25 million verdict based solely on a state-law failure-to-warn claim.
The Missouri Court of Appeals joined the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth and 11th circuits and state appellate courts in California and Oregon in holding that federal law does not preempt state laws. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled the opposite in another case, according to Bayer’s filing.
At the end of last week, agriculture groups filed an amicus brief in support of Bayer.
Those groups include the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, American Sugarbeet Growers Association, Cherry Marketing Institute, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, International Fresh Produce Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council of America, National Sorghum Producers, North American Blueberry Council and Western Growers.
In that brief, the groups said glyphosate is “essential to sustaining American farming” and that removing it from the market would “pose an immediate, devastating risk to America’s food supply.”
Ag groups told the court the federal law already thoroughly regulates glyphosate and EPA has extensively studied the chemical and approved its packaging.
“To allow states to impose additional or different requirements on glyphosate’s labeling and packaging would contradict both FIFRA and EPA,” the ag groups said in the brief.
“Glyphosate and industries benefitting from glyphosate are not the only ones directly affected by the court’s ruling. Without the court’s involvement, conflicts will proliferate concerning any pesticidal products whose safety EPA has reviewed and whose label it has approved.”
Ag groups said they were deeply concerned by rulings from Missouri Court of Appeals and the Ninth and 11th circuits and their interpretation of federal law.
“It would be logistically impossible to conform to each state’s individualized labeling regime and would create risks if the incorrect pesticide package labeled for one state ended up in the wrong state,” the ag groups said.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and CropLife America are among other groups also filing amicus briefs.
###
DTN
