Viewpoint: The MAHA movement’s wrongheaded war on glyphosate is part of a misplaced broader attack on modern agriculture

By Michael Grunwald
Published October 1, 2025 on Genetic Literacy Project

The MAHA movement’s war on glyphosate is part of a broader war on modern farming — not only herbicides and other pesticides but synthetic fertilizers, genetic engineering and factory feedlots. … Many liberals repulsed by Mr. Kennedy’s unscientific bias against vaccines and Tylenol share his unscientific bias against agri-chemicals, genetically modified organisms and industrial agriculture.

Glyphosate is a convenient target because it’s the most widely used herbicide, and because “Roundup ready” GMO crops engineered to tolerate weed-killing doses of glyphosate are the ultimate symbol of the GMO revolution. There’s overwhelming evidence that GMOs are safe, and glyphosate happens to be one of the most benign forms of weed control. 

The Environmental Protection Agency, the European Food Safety Authority and regulators in Canada, Japan and Australia have all concluded it’s safe for humans. Even the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which campaigns against unsafe chemicals, noted that glyphosate has “significantly lower acute and chronic toxicity than many other herbicides on the market.”

Read the original article on Genetic Literacy Project »

Bayer announces Roundup alternative with rollout of new weedkiller in Australia

By Brandon Long
Published October 6, 2025 on Australia ABC

The global agrochemical company behind the controversial weedkiller glyphosate has unveiled plans to introduce a new class of herbicide in Australia.

Bayer says the product, icafolin-methyl, is the first new chemical specifically designed to kill sprouted weeds by attacking leaves to hit the market in more than three decades.

The company has submitted applications for the product to regulators in the European Union, the United States, Canada and Brazil, and will seek Australian approval next year, with a rollout expected in 2028.

Farmers battling herbicide resistance welcome the move, but environmental groups are not convinced the full risk is understood.

Growing Cost of Resistance

Since its introduction in Australia in 1974, glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, has become a critical tool in food production.

But growing resistance, both from the weeds it fights and some consumers, has impacted its effectiveness, with few good options to replace it.

Bayer Crop Science Australia and New Zealand managing director Warren Inwood said the new chemical would complement, not replace, glyphosate.

“The holy grail in research and development in herbicide activity is trying to find something to replace Roundup or glyphosate, which is as safe as glyphosate,” Mr. Inwood said.

“Icafolin will become a crucial tool, but it won’t be a direct replacement … we will continue supporting Roundup in our portfolio.”

Both glyphosate and icafolin are non-selective herbicides that kill all plants they contact, unlike selective herbicides, which spare desired plants.

Herbicide resistance develops when some weeds survive the repeated use of the same chemical, then reproduce, passing that adaptation on to future generations of the plant, making them harder to kill.

The Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) estimates herbicide resistance costs Australian grain growers $3.3 billion annually.

Mr. Inwood said icafolin had shown strong results in Australian trials against some of the country’s most troublesome weeds, including glyphosate-resistant ryegrass.

“Driving productivity in food security is increasingly important and the cost of weed control and management in Australia has increased,” he said.

“It will combat a significant number of resistant weeds, including ryegrass, and other hard-to-control weeds.”

Unlike with glyphosate, the Australian arm said at this stage, it was not targeting the home gardener, local government markets, or use with genetically modified crops.

Balancing the Need

On Queensland’s Darling Downs, grain grower Stuart McIntyre said the product could provide much-needed relief in the ongoing fight against weeds.

“It’s always pretty exciting as a grain grower that we’ve got extra arsenal in our weaponry against the constant battle of weeds,” Mr. McIntyre said.

He said glyphosate’s declining effectiveness was evident in his paddocks.

“I’ve been farming 13 or 14 years and in that short time I’ve noticed going from a fairly low dose of Roundup killing spear thistle to now having to use other herbicides along with glyphosate to knock it down,” he said.

“To use something else again would be of great benefit.”

But not everyone is convinced.

Environmental group Friends of the Earth Australia raised concerns about the potential rollout.

Land use researcher Anthony Amis said more information was needed on the long-term impact of exposure to frequent low doses.

“In typical fashion this new pesticide will probably gain regulatory approval without scientists having all available information,” he said.

“[There are] no details regarding the ecological impacts of this chemical, particularly its impacts on birds, bees and aquatic life … spray drift and water contamination.”

The chemical will need to be registered for use by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), which regulates which chemicals can be sold in the country, and how they are used.

The APVMA said when reviewing a chemical, it takes in a wide range of scientific data submitted in support of an application.

“On occasion, credible new scientific information may be generated after a product has been registered that suggests the existence of previously unknown risks to human health, animal or crop safety, the environment or trade, or that suggests product ineffectiveness,” it said.

“If this happens, we can initiate a reconsideration process to assess the identified risk and determine whether changes are needed to ensure that the product can continue to be used safely and effectively.”

Bayer said it would submit a “robust dossier” to APVMA, including local trial data on residues, efficacy and crop safety. 

Ivan Kennedy, emeritus professor of agricultural and environmental chemistry at the University of Sydney, said the chemical was a major development.

“I definitely think it is groundbreaking,” Professor Kennedy said.

Professor Kennedy, who has long praised glyphosate’s safety profile, said while the data was not yet public, the new herbicide appeared to only need to be used in small concentrations.

“There is the issue of the rates of use. I understand that it’s a very sensitive process, so they don’t need to use much,” he said.

“That means the question of residues in the environment may be less as a result of that.”

Read the original article on Australia ABC »

Missouri High Court Declines to Hear Bayer’s Appeal of $611 Million Roundup Verdict

By Fatima E
Published October 5, 2025 on JDJournal

The Missouri Supreme Court has refused to hear Bayer AG’s appeal of a $611 million verdict tied to its Roundup weedkiller, marking yet another major legal setback for the chemical and pharmaceutical giant. The decision leaves intact a lower appellate ruling that upheld the massive damages awarded to three plaintiffs who claimed that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, caused their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

This move further cements Bayer’s long-running legal troubles over Roundup and underscores the challenges the company faces in trying to limit its mounting liabilities.

The Case Behind The $611 Million Judgment

The case stems from a 2023 trial in Cole County, Missouri, where a jury found Bayer’s Monsanto unit liable for failing to warn consumers about the potential cancer risks associated with glyphosate exposure. The plaintiffs—Daniel Anderson, Jimmy Draeger, and Valorie Gunther—alleged that years of using Roundup led to their diagnoses of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

The jury originally awarded an eye-popping $1.56 billion in damages, including $1.5 billion in punitive damages meant to punish Monsanto for alleged misconduct. However, in April 2024, a trial judge reduced that award to $611 million to comply with constitutional limits on punitive damages established by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Despite the reduction, the verdict remained one of the largest ever upheld against Bayer in its ongoing Roundup litigation.

Bayer’s Appeal Rejected At Every Level

Bayer challenged the verdict, arguing that the trial court improperly admitted certain evidence, including references to prior court opinions critical of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) stance on glyphosate safety. The company maintained that federal pesticide law preempts state failure-to-warn claims, asserting that its Roundup label complied with EPA regulations and could not be altered under federal law.

However, in May 2025, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, rejected these arguments, affirming the trial court’s decision in full. The appellate judges found no reversible error in the handling of expert testimony or in the jury’s assessment of Bayer’s liability.

With its state-level options narrowing, Bayer petitioned the Missouri Supreme Court to review the case, but the justices declined to hear the appeal without comment—a move that effectively leaves the $611 million judgment intact.

Bayer’s Mounting Roundup Liabilities

The Missouri Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case adds to Bayer’s growing legal and financial burdens. Since acquiring Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion, Bayer has faced tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging that Roundup causes cancer. While the company continues to insist that glyphosate is safe and that its products comply with federal safety standards, juries across the United States have repeatedly found otherwise.

In 2020, Bayer agreed to a $10.9 billion settlement to resolve a significant portion of the Roundup lawsuits but left tens of thousands of claims unresolved. As of 2025, the company still faces approximately 67,000 pending cases, according to court filings.

In anticipation of ongoing litigation, Bayer recently allocated an additional $1.4 billion to cover future claims, acknowledging that its legal exposure remains far from over.

Legal And Regulatory Questions At Stake

At the heart of Bayer’s defense is its argument that federal law preempts state product liability claims. The company contends that the EPA’s repeated findings that glyphosate is “not likely carcinogenic” should shield it from liability under state law. However, courts in Missouri, California, and other jurisdictions have consistently ruled that federal law does not override a manufacturer’s duty to warn consumers under state law.

Bayer has also argued that the trial court’s decision to allow jurors to hear about the Ninth Circuit’s prior criticism of the EPA’s glyphosate findings was prejudicial. Still, the Missouri appellate court ruled that the evidence was properly used to challenge the credibility of the EPA’s position and was relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims.

The broader question—whether federal pesticide labeling laws should preempt state failure-to-warn claims—has been a recurring theme in the Roundup litigation and may eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court for a definitive ruling.

A Continuing Legal Battle With National Implications

The Missouri Supreme Court’s decision is significant not only for Bayer but also for the future of mass tort litigation in the United States. It reaffirms that juries can hold major corporations accountable for consumer harm even when federal regulators have approved the products in question.

For plaintiffs’ attorneys, the ruling represents a validation of state-level consumer protection laws and signals that punitive damages will remain a powerful deterrent against corporate negligence. For corporate defendants, however, it highlights the challenges of overturning large verdicts once they survive appellate scrutiny.

Given the magnitude of the case and its implications for federal preemption, legal observers expect Bayer to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review. If accepted, the case could redefine the boundary between federal regulatory authority and state tort law.

Bayer’s Path Forward

While the Missouri verdict stands as one of the largest in Bayer’s Roundup litigation history, the company has managed to win several cases in other jurisdictions, arguing successfully that glyphosate is safe when used as directed. Nevertheless, the repeated losses in high-profile cases continue to tarnish Bayer’s reputation and weigh on investor confidence.

Bayer’s leadership has indicated that it remains committed to defending the product and pursuing appeals where appropriate. However, some analysts have suggested that the company might consider new global settlement strategies or even structural changes—such as separating its crop science division—to insulate its other businesses from ongoing litigation risk.

For legal professionals following the latest in product liability, mass torts, and environmental litigation, staying informed is essential. Explore thousands of cutting-edge opportunities in these legal fields on LawCrossing. Whether you’re pursuing a career in toxic torts, appellate advocacy, or corporate compliance, LawCrossing connects you with the positions that define the next era of legal practice.

Read the original article on JDJournal »

Read more from the "In the Weeds" Series »