News

US Supreme Court sides with Bayer on glyphosate pesticides

The US Supreme Court has ruled that Bayer cannot be held liable for failure to warn of health risks related to its glyphosate-based products – a ruling met with mixed response amongst industry and NGOs.

The Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled in favour of German agrochemical giant Bayer in a lawsuit relating to its Monsanto glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup. The Monsanto v Durnell case, opened in 2019, includes a tort claim against Monsanto linking use of its glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup to the claimant's cancer and a failure-to-warn claim suggesting the company should have included a warning label on its product.

In the June 25 2026 ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that Bayer could not be held liable for failing to warn about the health risks associated with its glyphosate-based products because additional warning labels, like a cancer warning label, would go against federal-law labelling obligations and wider US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) findings.

“The EPA has repeatedly evaluated glyphosate and repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer. EPA's assessment is shared by many other regulatory bodies around the world,” the Court said in its headnote for the ruling. Federal law, it continued, requires Monsanto to sell Roundup with the EPA approved label for pesticides; “that is, the label without the cancer warning”.

The latest ruling follows an initial $1 million awarded to Durnell and subsequent appeal from Monsanto that was later rejected in the Court of Appeals.

Bayer: Ruling should 'contain' litigation

In a company statement, Bayer said the US Supreme Court's decision is a “landmark ruling” that should help “significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles”.

“The ruling should result in the dismissal of current warning-based claims and bar future failure-to-warn claims,” the company said. Referencing its February 2026 nationwide class settlement, Bayer said Monsanto would continue to pursue final approval of this class settlement and other elements of a “multi-pronged strategy to contain the Roundup litigation”.

The German agrochemical major said glyphosate remains the most studied crop protection tool in the world and that the ruling is good news for industry. “The US Supreme Court decision is good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation.”

The American Soybean Association said the decision provides “much-needed clarity” for the regulation of glyphosate products. “For decades, the US Environmental Protection Agency, along with regulatory authorities around the world, has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk when used as directed,” it said in a statement. “State-level requirements have led to a burdensome regulatory patchwork that conflicts with EPA-approved labels and creates confusion, undermining confidence in the regulatory process and limiting access to essential crop protection tools.”

A “major setback for Americans”

However, stakeholders noted that an influential 2013 scientific paper that concluded glyphosate is safe was ghostwritten by developer Monsanto, and that the US Environmental Protection Agency has known this for nearly a decade.

US social welfare non-profit Protect Our Care condemned the Supreme Court ruling, describing it as “deeply misguided” and a “betrayal” of the Make America Health Again (MAHA) movement.

During a press event organised by the non-profit, Dr Vin Gupta, medical analyst and physician, described the decision as a major setback for Americans seeking transparency and accountability around chemical exposure, adding it was “a legal ruling, not a scientific one”.

Dr Melody Cunningham, Montana representative and oncologist, agreed, noting the ruling “does not say glyphosate or Roundup are safe” but rather “shuts the door on cancer patients being able to sue Monsanto”.

Cunningham added: “I really truly believe that this is going to embolden other corporations to ignore safety signals, not just cancer signals, but other safety signals about patients and people's health, and it's really a public health travesty.”

In a separate statement, Angela Huffman, president of farmer-led advocacy group Farm Action, said the ruling weakens protections for farmers, farmworkers, and the public, setting a “dangerous precedent for other corporations seeking similar immunity”.

“We are disappointed by the Court's decision, but this fight is far from over. No corporation should be allowed to use its market power or political influence to put itself above the law. We will continue defending the fundamental right to seek justice,” Huffman said.

Bayer separates Roundup business, creates Ruveon

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, Bayer AG announced the consolidation of its US glyphosate business into a distinct entity, Ruveon, which launched on 1 July 2026.

The move, it said, will help reinforce the company's commitment to delivering Roundup brands and glyphosate products and services to US customers.

“Ruveon is expected to be a more nimble and well-positioned player within its commodity-based market, which requires a specialised approach to address competitive dynamics,” Bayer said.

Based in St. Louis, Ruveon will be solely responsible for US glyphosate-based product offerings, pricing, go-to-market strategies, production and logistics.

According to Reuters, the move has prompted speculation that Bayer could be working towards structural changes, including divestments or spin-offs of certain assets. Bayer maintains the move is an “executional step” within a wider five-year framework designed to drive growth, resilience and profitability.