Why Trump is backing Bayer in weedkiller most cancers battle – DW – 12/22/2025 | EUROtoday

The long-running authorized combat over Bayer’s weedkiller Roundup has seen almost 200,000 most cancers claims filed in US courts over the previous seven years and is now being changed into a political tug of battle.

In prior Roundup lawsuits, the US Justice Department underneath former President Joe Biden, had argued that customers ought to be allowed to pursue damages towards Germany’s chemical large, with most claims involving non‑Hodgkin lymphoma after long-term publicity to the pesticide.

Earlier this month, nevertheless, President Donald Trump’s administration reversed course. After the US Supreme Court sought the Solicitor General’s view, the Justice Department sided with Bayer and urged limits on the tens of 1000’s of excellent claims.

Bayer has already paid out round $10 billion (€8.53 billion) to settle disputed most cancers claims within the US. In July, the agency stated it could put aside an additional €1.2 billion ($1.41 billion), a lot of it for compensation.

Bayer acquired Roundup in 2018 as a part of its $63 billion buy of Monsanto, the US agribusiness large finest recognized for genetically modified seeds and controversial agrochemicals.

Policy change units up states vs federal battle

Biden’s Justice Department had argued that federal pesticide legislation doesn’t defend Bayer from state‑courtroom lawsuits, since legal responsibility and shopper safety are historically issues for particular person states.

Plaintiffs — from farmers to residence gardeners — introduced claims underneath their very own state guidelines, alleging that Roundup’s lively ingredient, glyphosate, causes most cancers and that Bayer failed to offer satisfactory warnings.

US federal legislation units nationwide requirements for pesticide approval, however doesn’t override states’ public‑security powers. So even with glyphosate permitted by the federal regulator, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), individuals might nonetheless sue in the event that they believed Bayer’s labeling was deceptive.

Lawsuits labeled a expensive drag on the business

By distinction, the Trump administration has now urged the Supreme Court to simply accept Bayer’s argument that federal legislation preempts such lawsuits, successfully narrowing the scope for the 65,000 remaining plaintiffs.

Supporters of federal preemption say it creates constant nationwide guidelines for pesticide labels, avoiding confusion from various state necessities and supporting the EPA’s central function in regulating security.

Trump’s crew has additionally reframed the Roundup litigation as an pointless burden on enterprise, because it exposes Bayer to large, unpredictable liabilities even when the EPA has permitted its merchandise.

Critics denounced Trump’s place as advancing company agendas on the expense of justice for the huge variety of claimants, lots of whom report terminal or severely disabling circumstances.

“This trend of restricting citizens’ rights by extreme right-wing governments [like Trump’s] is … frightening,” Martin Dermine, government director of PAN Europe, a community of NGOs working to get rid of hazardous pesticides and promote sustainable agriculture, informed DW.

Other opponents of Trump’s newest transfer argue the reversal reveals a failure to guard public well being and weakens state-level authority, stripping native courts of their energy to carry companies accountable.

Bayer urges speedy finish to controversy

Bayer has lobbied US legislators over the mass lawsuits and petitioned Supreme Court justices to evaluate a ruling by a courtroom in Missouri that upheld a $1.25 million jury award to John Durnell, who claimed his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was attributable to publicity to the weedkiller.

The German pharmaceutical and biotechnology large has cited a long time of research that it says present Roundup is secure for human use. This argument was, nevertheless, weakened when a key evaluate paper from 2000, usually cited in protection of glyphosate’s security, was retracted earlier this month because of undisclosed ghostwriting by Monsanto and different moral points.

Even so, the overwhelming majority of regulatory our bodies worldwide nonetheless classify glyphosate as noncarcinogenic when used as directed.

Bayer’s CEO, Bill Anderson, warned the agency could cease promoting Roundup within the US if the lawsuits cannot be resolved quickly. Anderson informed an occasion by the US information web site Axios in May that the weedkiller is “table stakes” [indispensable] within the combat towards international meals insecurity.

He lately welcomed Trump’s coverage reversal, including: “The stakes could not be higher as the misapplication of federal law jeopardizes the availability of innovative tools for farmers and investments in the broader US economy.”

Supreme Court ruling might restrict future claims

US Supreme Court justices should now determine whether or not to listen to Bayer’s petition. If accepted, a ruling by mid-2026 will decide whether or not the German firm wins sweeping authorized safety.

Mary J. Davis, dean on the University of Kentucky’s Rosenberg College of Law, defined that the courtroom is reflecting by itself determination from 20 years in the past on US federal pesticide legislation.

In that 2005 ruling, the justices stated federal guidelines management what warnings should seem on pesticide labels and that states can not demand totally different or further warnings. However, this doesn’t robotically cease all state-level lawsuits towards firms like Bayer for failing to warn about dangers.

“The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is not particularly clear on the scope of state law,” Davis informed DW. “There is a pretty good chance that the court may want to clarify how that law works.”

A positive ruling might probably save the corporate billions from excellent claims. It might additionally make it more durable for shoppers to file lawsuits over dangerous merchandise and sharply restrict compensation claims.

Davis, a main merchandise‑legal responsibility scholar whose profession consists of a long time of analysis on federal supremacy in authorized circumstances, put the stakes for Bayer bluntly:

“If this case does not get heard by the Supreme Court and decided in the company’s favor, there will be many more years of litigation,” she informed DW.

No matter the end result, Chris Hilson, professor of legislation and local weather change on the UK’s University of Reading, cautioned that the Roundup lawsuits could show to be “just the start” of a broader wave of litigation towards the agri-food sector.

“Climate litigation has so far mainly targeted the energy transition, with fossil fuel companies in the firing line,” Hilson informed DW. “We can expect to see more court cases brought by the environmental movement, on both climate and biodiversity and human health grounds.”

Bayer’s case is being carefully watched in Europe, the place the European Union has prolonged glyphosate’s approval till 2033 regardless of fierce opposition from environmental teams. Some EU member states, together with France and Austria, proceed to push for stricter limits or outright bans.

Edited by: Uwe Hessler