Roundup / Glyphosate Litigation (Bayer/Monsanto)

Roundup is the most widely used herbicide in the history of agriculture. Introduced by Monsanto in 1974, its active ingredient — glyphosate — became the backbone of modern industrial farming, particularly after the introduction of 'Roundup Ready' genetically modified crops in the 1990s that could survive direct glyphosate application. Global annual glyphosate use now exceeds 1.8 billion pounds.

The litigation erupted after the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as 'probably carcinogenic to humans' (Group 2A) in March 2015. This classification was based on a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies, animal bioassays, and mechanistic evidence.

Critically, internal Monsanto documents obtained during litigation — collectively known as the 'Monsanto Papers' — revealed a systematic corporate effort to manipulate scientific research and regulatory review. Documents showed Monsanto scientists ghostwriting academic papers that appeared under the names of independent researchers, orchestrating coordinated attacks on IARC and its scientists, and strategizing to influence EPA reviews of glyphosate safety. These internal communications have been central to jury decisions in every trial that has proceeded to verdict.

Bayer acquired Monsanto in June 2018 for $63 billion, just weeks before the first Roundup trial verdict. The acquisition has proven catastrophic for Bayer's balance sheet, with the company committing over $11 billion to settlements while its stock price has declined by more than 70% since the acquisition.

Over 100,000 plaintiffs — including farmers, landscapers, groundskeepers, nursery workers, and residential gardeners — have filed claims alleging that their Roundup exposure caused Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), a group of blood cancers affecting the lymphatic system. The cases span both the federal MDL in the Northern District of California and state courts across the country, with particularly large state dockets in Missouri and California.

The scientific debate around glyphosate and cancer is among the most consequential in regulatory toxicology and has become a central battleground in the litigation.

IARC's 2015 classification of glyphosate as 'probably carcinogenic to humans' (Group 2A) was based on 'sufficient evidence' of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and 'limited evidence' in humans, plus 'strong' mechanistic evidence including genotoxicity and oxidative stress. The classification reviewed all publicly available scientific literature, including long-term animal studies showing statistically significant tumor increases and human epidemiological studies showing associations between glyphosate exposure and NHL.

Key epidemiological evidence includes the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) — a prospective cohort study of over 50,000 licensed pesticide applicators in Iowa and North Carolina, one of the largest studies of pesticide exposure and health ever conducted. A 2019 meta-analysis published in Mutation Research found a 41% increased risk of NHL among individuals with the highest levels of glyphosate exposure (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.13-1.75).

A major new two-year study published in Environmental Health in 2025 found that glyphosate caused multiple cancers in laboratory rats even at doses considered 'safe' under current regulatory standards, adding significant new evidence to the causation debate.

The EPA has maintained that glyphosate is 'not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,' though a federal court vacated portions of this assessment in 2022, finding the EPA had not adequately considered available evidence. The scientific disagreement between IARC and EPA — and the Monsanto Papers' revelation that Monsanto worked to influence the EPA's review — has itself become a central issue in litigation.

Areas of ongoing debate include the role of glyphosate versus surfactants and other ingredients in Roundup formulations, and whether the epidemiological evidence, while statistically significant, demonstrates a strong enough association to establish causation for individual cases.

Eligible individuals may include those who regularly used Roundup or other glyphosate-based herbicides in occupational or residential settings and were subsequently diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or related lymphatic cancers. This encompasses:

• Agricultural workers and farmers who used Roundup on crops • Commercial landscapers and lawn care professionals • Municipal and institutional groundskeepers • Nursery and greenhouse workers • Golf course maintenance workers • Homeowners who used Roundup regularly for lawn and garden maintenance

Exposure periods of several years are typically documented in cases that have proceeded through litigation. Residential users with regular, repeated exposure may have claims alongside occupational users.

This eligibility information is general and informational only. Whether you have a viable legal claim depends on the specific facts of your situation and the laws of your jurisdiction. Consult a licensed attorney.

As of early 2026, approximately 61,000 Roundup cases remain active — approximately 4,500 in the federal MDL and the majority in state courts. Bayer has already settled approximately 100,000 cases for over $11 billion in total.

CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT: The U.S. Supreme Court is considering certiorari in Durnell v. Monsanto, a case that could determine whether federal pesticide labeling law (FIFRA) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims against Roundup. A ruling for Monsanto on federal preemption grounds could effectively gut thousands of remaining cases by eliminating plaintiffs' ability to argue that Roundup should have carried a cancer warning. The Supreme Court conference date was June 26, 2025.

Bayer's proposed $7.25 billion class action settlement received preliminary approval from a Missouri Circuit Court judge on March 5, 2026. The settlement aims to resolve current and future claims. A final approval hearing is set for July 2026. Bayer has agreed to pay $500 million into a medical monitoring fund. However, plaintiff attorneys representing roughly 20,000 claimants have opposed the deal and may opt out.

Recent trial verdicts continue to produce massive awards: jury verdicts of $175 million, $332 million, $2.25 billion, and $2.1 billion have been entered in 2023-2025, though these are typically reduced substantially on appeal.

Bayer AG, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has mounted a multi-pronged defense. The company argues that glyphosate is one of the most thoroughly studied agricultural chemicals in history and that regulatory agencies worldwide — including the EPA, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority — have concluded it is not carcinogenic when used as directed.

Bayer has particularly emphasized the EPA's 2020 interim decision that glyphosate is 'not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,' arguing that this federal determination should preempt state-law failure-to-warn claims. This preemption argument is the core issue in the Durnell v. Monsanto Supreme Court petition.

Regarding the Monsanto Papers, Bayer has argued that the documents have been taken out of context and that Monsanto's engagement with the scientific community and regulatory agencies was standard industry practice. Critics note that ghostwriting academic papers and orchestrating attacks on WHO scientists go well beyond standard practice.

In 2023, Bayer reformulated U.S. residential Roundup products to remove glyphosate — a decision the company characterized as a business strategy to reduce litigation risk rather than an acknowledgment of safety concerns. Agricultural Roundup products continue to contain glyphosate.

Bayer's total Roundup-related expenditures — including settlements, legal costs, and restructuring charges — have exceeded $16 billion, making it one of the most expensive product liability episodes in corporate history.

Bayer has committed over $11 billion to Roundup-related settlements and litigation costs, making it one of the largest mass tort resolutions in history. The settlement program has resolved approximately 100,000 individual cases.

In March 2026, a Missouri court granted preliminary approval to a $7.25 billion class action settlement covering current and future claims, with final approval expected in July 2026. Approximately 20,000 claimants represented by certain plaintiff law firms have opposed the deal.

The first three bellwether trials established the massive per-case exposure: • Johnson v. Monsanto (2018): $289 million verdict (reduced to $20.5 million on appeal) • Hardeman v. Monsanto (2019): $80 million verdict (reduced to $25 million) • Pilliod v. Monsanto (2019): $2 billion verdict (reduced to $86.7 million)

Phase 1 settlement values reportedly ranged from $100,000 to $160,000 per case. Phase 2 values are expected to be higher given the escalating verdict history.

Past settlement amounts are not a guarantee of future results. Individual claim values vary significantly based on diagnosis, exposure duration, and case-specific evidence.