by Mary McCue Bell, for Investigate Midwest, Investigate Midwest
August 18, 2025
Unyielding is a University of Missouri School of Journalism project for Investigate Midwest.
With billions of dollars at stake, Bayer has gone on the offensive.
Billboards along major highways. A social media offensive.
Tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations in Missouri alone.
And a major push in at least 11 states to change pesticide labeling laws.
Such efforts by the agricultural biotech company and others are tied to a chemical that, for years, was found on garage shelves throughout America and is still being applied to commercially-grown crops throughout the country.
The battle over Roundup and glyphosate, the controversial chemical it contains, is a case study in how regulation, politics and big business are intertwined in the agricultural industry.
When Germany’s Bayer AG bought Monsanto in 2018, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology company set aside over $16 billion to cover litigation liability associated with thousands of U.S. lawsuits alleging its glyphosate-based weed-killer Roundup causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma cancer. The lawsuits often hinge on whether Roundup should have a warning label.
After losing cases to cancer victims, Bayer said in 2020 that it would pay more than $10 billion to address, through a mix of rulings and settlements, roughly 125,000 claims. The chemical giant also said that by 2023, it would replace its glyphosate-based products in the U.S. residential market with new formulations using alternative ingredients. Bayer Crop Science’s head of communications, Jess Christiansen, said the move was made exclusively to manage litigation risk, as most legal claims have come from residential users, and not because of any safety concerns with glyphosate.
A farmer sprays pesticides on May 21, 2025, in Senath, Mo. photo by Michael Baniewicz, for Investigate Midwest
Roundup, with glyphosate as its main active ingredient, is still available for commercial purchase.
Bayer has been involved in 181,000 Roundup cases in total, with 67,000 still open, a Bayer spokesperson said.
As the cost of litigation soared, Bayer ramped up its support to alter pesticide labeling in states across the country. Legislation and litigation go hand in hand; what’s proposed in the statehouse has a direct impact in the courthouse.
Legislation in Missouri and across states from Montana to Florida has looked to address pesticide labeling and product liability.
The bills stated that if a pesticide product is approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or is consistent with the agency’s cancer classifications, it doesn’t need additional cancer warning labels.
Proponents claim this legislation is about protecting access to pesticides, which they say are critical tools for farmers. Opponents claim it’s a litigation and liability immunity shield.
The duty to warn
While a few similar bills were proposed last year, Bayer and other companies greatly increased their lobbying efforts in 2025.
Christiansen said these bills would ensure any pesticide registered with the EPA — and sold under a label consistent with the EPA’s own determinations — satisfies health and safety warnings. Because the EPA has not determined that glyphosate is linked to cancer, no such warning is required by the agency.
On its own and through various coalitions, Bayer has supported legislation in about a dozen states. As of May, two states have signed pesticide labeling bills into law: North Dakota and Georgia, both of which received praise from Bayer. Bills have failed in several other states, including Missouri, where two identical pesticide bills backed by Bayer died when the session ended in May.
Community and environmental groups in Iowa voice their opposition to a bill inside the state capitol building in Des Moines on Feb. 10, 2025. The bill would give legal protection to pesticide makers against lawsuits. photo by Julie Russell-Steuart, Food & Water Watch via Civil Eats
Proponents and opponents of these bills cite the most common claim under product liability for these types of cases, but at different ends of the spectrum: the duty to warn.
Failure to warn is frequently raised in product liability lawsuits, such as those against Bayer. Plaintiffs commonly use this to allege a product manufacturer did not provide adequate warnings or instructions about a product’s safe use. A plaintiff then needs to prove that the manufacturer must have known or could have easily discovered risks associated with the product but failed to warn consumers, resulting in the plaintiff’s injury.
Tort liability is the legal responsibility that comes from causing harm as a result of a wrongful act or omission. Bayer has argued that it does not have tort liability because the EPA has already assessed glyphosate and determined it is not a probable carcinogen.
Some argue that a cancer warning is good for transparency and right-to-know reasons, said Penelope Fenner-Crisp, the former senior science advisor to the director, EPA Office of Pesticide Programs. But adding short statements to labels does not reflect the nuances associated with assessing chemical exposures. which is one reason the EPA does not require a cancer warning, Fenner-Crisp said.
Christiansen said that “if a company like Bayer goes through this rigorous scientific process with the EPA, and we label the product how we're legally required to label it, then we've satisfied the duty for health and safety warning.”
The stakes are high, and not just for Bayer.
More than 25,000 lawsuits alleging glyphosate caused the plaintiffs’ non-Hodgkin lymphoma and failed to warn them about potential danger are pending in Cole County, Missouri, according to reporting by the Missouri Independent. In 2023, three plaintiffs were awarded $1.56 billion, which was later reduced to $622 million. After Monsanto appealed, the court upheld the original ruling in late May of this year.
And Bayer isn’t the only litigation target; Syngenta has faced backlash from the chemical paraquat.
Thousands are suing chemical giant Syngenta, which sells paraquat under the product name Gramoxone. Lawsuits allege the weedkiller led to Parkinson’s disease, which destroys motor functions.
The company has disputed the allegations, stating that there is no connection between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease. Yet records released in litigation show Syngenta scientists found that paraquat had the potential to damage the brain and nervous system, first reported by The Guardian.
The first federal trial alleging that glyphosate in Roundup caused the plaintiff to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma was in Hardeman v. Monsanto, using failure-to-warn claims. The case made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2022 determined there was no need to reconsider the lower courts’ rulings in favor of Edwin Hardeman’s claim. Hardeman’s $25.2 million in damages remained intact.
“Our issue in the lawsuit was that Monsanto should not have concealed the truth and should have told consumers about the risk of cancer,” said Jennifer Moore, an attorney who represented Hardeman.
Attorney Matt Clement, who represents roughly 100 cases against Bayer, said his concern with the legislation pushed in Missouri and elsewhere is that it would do away with failure to warn claims. These bills could prevent Missourians from suing chemical manufacturers relating to a lack of health-risk warnings, Clement said. However, it’s hard to determine how the courts would navigate litigation if such bills were enacted.
The legislation backed by Bayer and other companies “would essentially take away the main claim that these folks have seeking compensation for their injuries,” Clement said.
Ethan Duke, co-founder of the Missouri River Bird Observatory, spoke in opposition to Missouri Senate Bill 14 in a Senate committee hearing in January. He said he is concerned about “protecting people's ability to stand up for themselves” through litigation rather than safeguarding the chemical manufacturers.
Many testified that the warning labels serve a crucial role.
“When you are in the business of selling an inherently dangerous product, product liability 101 says you need to have a warning label on it, otherwise you will be susceptible to litigation,” said Melissa Vatterott, director of policy and strategy for the Missouri Coalition for the Environment. “And so, if agrochemical companies are tired of class action lawsuits, then they should put a warning label on the product or change the ingredients so that it's not harmful.”
Rep. Adrian Plank, D-Columbia
Rep. Adrian Plank, D-Columbia, agrees, saying litigation keeps corporations accountable.
There is a narrative that multi-billion-dollar corporations are too big to fail, but “we have to understand that there's got to be a balance,” he said.
While no Missouri pesticide labeling bills became law in the 2025 session, an identical bill, House Bill 544, did pass the House. Before that vote, Rep. Doug Clements, D-St. Ann, cautioned against messing with the judicial process.
“We're not talking about whether a chemical causes cancer or not. That's not our job. Our job is to legislate. We have an entire branch of government designed to handle that sort of thing,” Clements said. “So we need to stay out of it.”
Christiansen said that legislative efforts take time and will continue. Keeping glyphosate-based Roundup on the market won’t be sustainable if litigation continues, she added.
If farmers don’t have access to tools such as pesticide sprays, then the amount of food they can produce and the cost of production would affect consumers at the grocery store, Christiansen said. The legislation “is really in support of protecting access to products that go through really rigorous, scientifically backed processes.”
Companies should be held accountable if they're doing something wrong, Christiansen said, but Bayer is not.
“These bills are not blanket immunity. People should still absolutely have their day in court if they deserve that,” she said. “It just makes no sense, particularly in the case of Roundup, where it does not cause cancer.”
Influencing the debate
Modern Ag Alliance’s website home page displays a message at the heart of the industry’s push for legislative action: “Control weeds, not farming.”
The Alliance’s site lists many benefits of glyphosate:
- Pesticides save the average family of four up to 48% on their average grocery bill.
- Glyphosate-based products are Missouri farmers’ best tool for controlling weeds and using less land and resources.
- The chemical saves Missouri farmers an estimated $358 million annually compared to “pricier alternatives.”
Modern Ag Alliance was founded by Bayer.
Residents in districts represented by nine conservative Missouri state senators who opposed the bills were sent politically charged flyers. The campaign warned that chemicals from Communist China would pour into the state, if the legislation were enacted. Bayer officials said the company was not involved.
The book “Seed Money,” written by environmental historian Bart Elmore, examines the influence of Monsanto (the company Bayer bought) over the food system. His book suggests a “cozy relationship” between the regulated and regulators — chemical manufacturers and the EPA, respectively.
In his book, such evidence includes when an arm of the World Health Organization determined that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic to humans in 2015, Monsanto officials s sent text messages to EPA officials. They were worried about the CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s review of glyphosate, and “pushed” the EPA to ensure both U.S. agencies were aligned in glyphosate assessments.
“The point is, it's a broken system already, and the confluence of chemicals that are out there is the problem,” Elmore said in an interview with Investigate Midwest.
John Madras, a Sierra Club member who testified against one of the Missouri bills, explained that the negotiation between EPA and the manufacturer sometimes involves a “give and take” on what the label says. “Reopening discussion on the label is a mammoth task,” Madras said.
Fenner-Crisp said that it’s appropriate to have back-and-forth negotiations between the registrant and the agency. If both can talk about registering a chemical and its uses being approved, the registrant can understand what’s required and the EPA can communicate how it would interpret information presented.
Since the 2018 acquisition of Monsanto, Bayer’s political influence has surged. Though Bayer does not make corporate contributions to political parties or politicians, the company has a political action committee. The Bayer PAC and other committees that list Bayer as the contributor name spent more than $151,000 in Missouri during the 2023-2024 election cycle, according to the Missouri Ethics Commission.
Bayer CEO Bill Anderson, met with Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe when the legislative session began this year as a “normal course of business,” Christiansen said.
Rep. Dane Diehl, a fifth-generation farmer who sponsored the legislation, plans to continue the effort in the next legislative session in January 2026.
Bayer officials are happy with how the legislation has progressed this year, Christiansen said, noting that in 2024, when the effort began in three states, none of the legislation passed.
Vatterott, of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, said lawmakers should resist corporate influence.
“Legislators are voted in by the people, not corporations,” Vatterott said. “They should not be bending backward for corporations.”
Lillian Metzmeier and Ben Koelkebeck contributed to this report.
“Unyielding” was produced by students at the University of Missouri School of Journalism. The team included researchers, reporters, data analysts, photographers and graphic designers. The students, most of whom were seniors who graduated in May 2025, included:
Reporters: Mary McCue Bell, Alex Cox, Jonah Foster, Prajukta Ghosh, Adeleine Halsey, Ben Koelkebeck, Xander Lundblad, Lillian Metzmeier, Kyla Pehr, Seth Schwartzberg, Savvy Sleever and Mayci Wilderman.
Data and graphics: Alex Cox, Yasha Mikolajczak and Mariia Novoselia
Photography: Michael Baniewicz
For questions about the project, please contact Mark Horvit, horvitm@missouri.edu.
This article first appeared on Investigate Midwest and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
