Weedkiller maker asks US Supreme Court to block lawsuits claiming it
failed to warn about cancer
[April 08, 2025]
By DAVID A. LIEB
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Global agrochemical manufacturer Bayer has
asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether federal law preempts
thousands of state lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people that its
popular weedkiller could cause cancer.
Bayer's new request to the nation's highest court comes as it is
simultaneously pursing legislation in several states seeking to erect a
legal shield against lawsuits targeting Roundup, a commonly used
weedkiller for both farms and homes. Bayer disputes the cancer claims
but has set aside $16 billion to settle cases and asserted Monday that
the future of American agriculture is at stake.
In a court filing Friday, Bayer urged the Supreme Court to take up a
Missouri case that awarded $1.25 million to a man who developed
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after spraying Roundup on a community garden in
St. Louis. The federally approved label for Roundup includes no warning
of cancer. Bayer contends federal pesticide laws preempt states from
adopting additional labeling for products and thus prohibits
failure-to-warn lawsuits brought under state laws.
The Supreme Court in 2022 declined to hear a similar claim from Bayer in
a California case that awarded more than $86 million to a married
couple.
But Germany-based Bayer, which acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018,
contends the Supreme Court should intervene now because lower courts
have issued conflicting rulings. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled in Bayer's favor last year while the 9th and 11th Circuits have
ruled against its stance.
An attorney representing the St. Louis gardener said Bayer is “really
grasping at straws."
“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,” said
attorney Jim Onder, whose firm has more than 20,000 clients with
failure-to-warn claims regarding Roundup.
Bayer faces about 181,000 Roundup claims, mostly from residential users.
Because of that, Bayer stopped using the key ingredient glyphosate in
Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market. But
glyphosate remains in agricultural products. It's designed to be used
with genetically modified seeds that can resist the weedkiller’s deadly
effect, thus allowing farmers to produce more while conserving the soil
by tilling it less.
Bayer has said it might have to consider pulling glyphosate from U.S.
agricultural markets if the lawsuits persist.
“This is a bigger threat to innovation in general, when we think about
agriculture," said Jess Christiansen, head of communications for Bayer’s
crop science division. "If glyphosate falls to the litigation industry,
what could be next?”
[to top of second column]
|
Protesters congregate at the Iowa state capitol building in Des
Moines on Feb. 10, 2025, to rally against a bill that would protect
pesticide companies from lawsuits that claim its popular weedkiller
causes cancer. (AP Photo/Hannah Fingerhut, File)
 Bayer has made similar arguments to
lawmakers in several states. Georgia recently became the first to
pass legislation backed by Bayer that would deem federally approved
pesticide labels sufficient to satisfy any state-law duty to warn
customers. Gov. Brian Kemp has not indicated whether he will sign
the bill.
A jury in Georgia recently ordered Bayer to pay nearly $2.1 billion
to a man who claimed Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Legislation barring similar state failure-to-warn claims for
pesticide makers passed the Tennessee Senate on Thursday and the
North Dakota House earlier this year and is now pending in the
second chamber in each state.
Bayer also has focused heavily on Missouri and Iowa, home
respectively to its North America crop science division and a
Roundup manufacturing facility.
The Republican-led Missouri House narrowly passed the legislation in
February. But a coalition of Republican senators has vowed to block
it. State Sen. Nick Schroer has said it “would be a betrayal to the
public trust” and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial to
grant “immunity” to pesticide manufacturers against particular legal
claims.
Similar legislation advanced through the Iowa Senate this year with
exclusively Republican support. But the Iowa House declined to bring
the bill forward before last week’s legislative deadline. Iowa House
Speaker Pat Grassley told reporters Thursday “there’s not support”
within the Republican House caucus at this time.
The bill drew staunch opposition from environmental justice groups
that denounced it as a “cancer gag act,” saying it would limit the
rights of Iowans to hold pesticide companies accountable if their
products cause harm. During a February protest at the Iowa capitol
building, speakers took turns telling stories of family members
throughout the state who have been diagnosed with cancers.
___
Associated Press writer Hannah Fingerhut contributed from Des
Moines, Iowa.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
