Bayer sues AIG Insurance to help with legal bills as Roundup claims top $10 billion

By Bryce Gray, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Published December 15, 2025 on Oils & Fats International

Bayer is suing insurance giant AIG, alleging decades-old insurance policies should have helped cover billions of dollars in legal costs from Roundup and PCB cases now being shouldered by the German company.

In the suit, Bayer alleges that AIG and subsidiaries have refused “to honor their contractual obligations to provide insurance coverage for numerous lawsuits filed against Monsanto,” the Creve Coeur, Mo., based firm bought by Bayer in 2018.

"Thus far, more than 56,000 lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto by more than 149,000 plaintiffs," the suit says. "At present, approximately 50,000 of those lawsuits remain pending. Thousands of additional lawsuits may be filed against Monsanto in the future."

The new lawsuit focuses on insurance coverage that it says Monsanto purchased from AIG decades ago. In recent years, the weight of the Roundup litigation and other claims have crippled Bayer, cratering its stock price and fueling investors' calls for the company to split off its besieged agriculture arm that features Monsanto's legacy products.

The new suit, experts say, signals Bayer's willingness to pursue insurance companies to help cover a financial catastrophe that has reached roughly $12 billion in payouts and includes tens of thousands of cases.

“This is a fascinating case,” said Renee Henson, a University of Missouri law professor with expertise in product liability and insurance cases. “It’ll be interesting to see where it goes.... There is so much on the line, potentially.”

AIG did not respond to a request for comment. Bayer declined to provide additional information about the case.

When it purchased Monsanto, Bayer inherited a suite of liabilities, just in time for an avalanche of lawsuits centered around products Monsanto had sold, including Roundup and PCBs.

Roundup is a bestselling weedkiller that has sparked personal injury claims alleging that its active ingredient, glyphosate, caused health issues like cancer.

PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are chemicals with a variety of harmful health impacts that were used for decades in electrical and buildings products, before US production was banned in 1979. Wide-ranging PCB contamination has triggered property damage lawsuits and cleanup efforts in settings that commonly include school buildings and public bodies of water.

Bayer's suit against AIG, filed last week in Missouri’s St. Louis County court, focuses on those two kinds of cases: the personal injury cases related to Roundup, and the property damage cases tied to PCB contamination.

The suit says that, from 1967 to 1986, Monsanto purchased millions of dollars in general liability coverage from AIG and other insurers, which the suit alleges are AIG subsidiaries, to protect against such claims.

The financial toll from both types of lawsuits reaches into the billions of dollars, the suit says.

Since 2020, Bayer has paid more than $10 billion just to settle cases about Roundup, for instance. And as of the end of last year, the company had paid more than $1.9 billion for PCB cases, the suit says.

The past insurance, it alleges, “are all excess liability policies, which were purchased as protection against, among other things, the risk of mass tort liability arising from the use of products, a significant risk for any major manufacturing company.”

The suit does not specify the total compensation sought, saying that the exact amount of damages would be determined at trial. But it argues that the insurers “are obligated to reimburse Monsanto” up to the insurance policies’ applicable limits, as well as for costs that the company “incurs to defend itself” against the underlying claims.

In July 2024, Bayer submitted a demand for payment to AIG related to Roundup costs, the suit says. It did the same for PCB costs in October 2024, and has since provided updated totals, according to the lawsuit.

The suit said the company has shouldered costs that “exceed the limits” of the relevant insurance policies.

Legal experts said the lawsuit is an unsurprising move from Bayer.

It’s not unusual for manufacturers to seek recovery from insurers in similar situations, said Henson, the Mizzou professor.

“The novelty here, of course, is the scale of the Roundup litigation,” she said.

A lot will hinge on factors like the timing of PCB contamination, when exposure to products like Roundup happened, and how certain insurance terms — like an “occurrence” — are defined, said Michael Green, a visiting professor at Washington University’s School of Law with areas of expertise in product liability and insurance cases.

“There’s a lot of case law on the question of when the occurrence occurred, from initial exposure to the entire period you were exposed, to when the disease was determined,” he said.

Generally, Green said courts tend to be sympathetic to insurance holders, and rule in ways that maximize coverage.

Experts cautioned that it’s far too soon to weigh the merits of the case.

Still, they predicted this case might not be the only one of its kind from Bayer, explaining that it’s possible — or even likely — that similar lawsuits could emerge against other insurers, too.

Read the original article on Oils & Fats International »

European Union Commission Seeks Indefinite Approval for Glyphosate

By Bill Giannopoulos
Published December 29, 2025 on Greek City Times

The herbicide glyphosate, widely known under the brand name Roundup, has once again become a focal point in media coverage this year — this time following a European Commission proposal for indefinite approval of certain herbicides and pesticides, including glyphosate. The current regulation stipulates that plant protection products are approved for a maximum period of 15 years.

The Commission’s proposal is now under discussion among EU member states and in the European Parliament. The aim of this package of measures, as the Commission emphasizes, is to reduce bureaucracy for farmers, producers, businesses and authorities. According to the proposal, re-evaluations would only occur when scientific reasons arise.

The Controversial Glyphosate

Glyphosate, a broad-spectrum systemic foliar herbicide, has been at the center of intense debate for years regarding its potential impacts on human health and the environment. The American agrochemical giant Monsanto began producing and marketing the herbicide in 1974, when it was first launched in the U.S, under the name Roundup. In 2018, Monsanto was fully acquired by Bayer, meaning the German conglomerate took over both its operations and the legal burden of lawsuits related to the product.

In Germany, according to the website of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, “Glyphosate is the most widely used total herbicide and is mainly used in agriculture to control weeds. It causes the death of every plant. In this way, it severely affects both plants and the soil. It removes the food base for insects, birds and other animals. Scientific studies indicate that glyphosate harms biodiversity.”

Furthermore, tens of thousands of lawsuits are pending alleging potential carcinogenic effects of the herbicide, which both Monsanto and Bayer deny.

On one side, activists and NGOs call for stricter regulation of the herbicide and ultimately a complete ban. On the other, many farmers argue that food production would be impossible without the use of Roundup.

A Controversial Study

A scientific study published in 2000 concluded that the pesticide glyphosate and the Roundup formulation are not carcinogenic. The study was widely regarded as groundbreaking and contributed to the debate on glyphosate use, according to the publisher Elsevier, which issues the scientific journal. Since then, Monsanto repeatedly cited this study to argue in favor of the safety of its products.

Meanwhile, in the U.S, in recent years, people who developed cancer after using Roundup have repeatedly received high compensation awards.

However, the scientific journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology has now officially retracted the study: A legal dispute in the U.S, brought to light correspondence from Monsanto, revealing that the three authors listed on the study were likely not the only ones responsible for its content. Instead, Monsanto employees may have participated in drafting the research without being properly listed as co-authors.

The scientific assessment of glyphosate remains a subject of disagreement among international organizations. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified it as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Regulatory authorities such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) assess that, when used according to instructions, it poses no relevant risk to public health.

Nevertheless, in 2024, a coalition of civil society organizations legally challenged the Commission’s previous decision to renew the approval of the controversial herbicide glyphosate for another ten years, until 2033. Additional organizations have since joined, including Foodwatch and groups representing victims exposed to pesticides.

U.S.A: The Lawsuits, the Interests and Trump

The German business newspaper Handelsblatt, based in Düsseldorf, has also revisited the issue of glyphosate use. In a related report, the author notes that despite tens of thousands of pending lawsuits in the U.S, attributing potential carcinogenic effects to glyphosate, Bayer aims to limit its legal risk by 2026. According to the same article, “surprising many, the U.S, government clearly sided with Bayer just a few days ago. The White House fully supports the Leverkusen-based group’s appeal before the U.S, Supreme Court. Bayer seeks a landmark decision to relieve itself of the multibillion-dollar burden of lawsuits related to the herbicide glyphosate. Following the positive stance from the U.S, government, its chances of success are not negligible.”

At the same time, the author estimates that while “the Trump administration cites primarily legal reasons for this clear support, substantial political and economic interests are at stake behind the scenes.”

Read the original article on Greek City Times »

Australian flower growers see ‘red’ over federal government proposal to relax imported flower rules

By Laurissa Smith and Warwick Long
Published December 12, 2025 on Australia's ABC Rural RoundUp Newsletter

NOTE: This unusual but legal use of glyphosate in other areas of the world is one that I had never heard of before seeing this item. — Frank Lessiter, Editor, No-Till Farmer

The Australian federal government plans to stop treating imported flowers with glyphosate, saying it is not necessary to prevent disease spread or propagation.

The Australian flower industry is concerned about the biosecurity risks of ending the treatment.

What’s Next?

The government will take public submissions on its planned changes until February.

Australia last year imported $76 million worth of cut flowers, accounting for half of those sold across the country. 

Before they are freighted from countries including Kenya, Ecuador and Colombia, the stems are soaked in glyphosate herbicide. 

The process, called devitalization, prevents propagation of flowers and helps prevent the spread of pests and diseases.

After an eight-year evaluation, the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry (DAFF) has decided the post-harvest treatment is no longer needed.

As part of the review, the department examined whether the practice of soaking stems in weedkiller was scientifically justified.

It also looked at import conditions to see if they met Australia’s World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations.

A draft report said the risk of propagation and biosecurity issues without the treatment was low.

About 15 types of flowers and foliage are treated, including roses and carnations.

At an online industry briefing in November, DAFF representatives told growers there were no documented cases of individuals propagating cut flower imports commercially in Australia.

They also said a review of global online garden forum posts on social media platform Reddit showed “very low prevalence of this activity” by home gardeners.

But local flower growers argue that it just shows that the devitalization policy has been a deterrent.

Flower Industry Australia chief executive Anna Jabour said she was worried that scrapping the practice would have biosecurity implications.

“The department has not done adequate testing on what the impact of removing glyphosate will be for the broader agriculture sector,” she said. “This will impact table grapes, wine and olives.”

Why Are flower Growers Worried?

Imported flowers have some of the highest insect interceptions upon arrival in the country.

Victorian flower grower Nikki Davey said there were plenty of flowers undetected by quarantine officers.

“It’s not uncommon to hear florists talk about opening or unwrapping a bunch of flowers and having a pest fly out,” she said.

“It’s about use understanding the risks with being dependent on those high volumes of imported flowers.”

In recent years flower imports have been behind the introduction of several pests into Australia, including serpentine leaf miner, western flower thrip, and Russian wheat aphid.

But the biggest pest threat to Australia is the bacteria xylella.

Australia is one of the few countries free of the pathogen, which is spread by infected plant material and insects and has the potential to affect up to 600 plant species.

“Once it’s established, there is no cure,” Ms. Jabour said.

“It’s caused billions of dollars in changed landscapes permanently where it has impacted countries.

“The department is removing this [devitalization] requirement and they’re focusing on how it limits propagation, but they haven’t done the biosecurity risk analysis adequately.”

Flower Import Review

Australia and New Zealand are the only countries that have required devitalization of imported cut flowers and foliage.

New Zealand opted to ditch it in November of 2025, a move which also attracted backlash from its local flower growers.

A DAFF spokesperson said: “The Australian government will never compromise on biosecurity.”

“The draft pest risk analysis identifies that biosecurity risks associated with diversion from intended use achieves Australia’s appropriate level of protection,” the spokesperson said.

“Therefore, phytosanitary measures are not required.”

The body representing the counts nursery operators, Green life Industry Australia (GIA), said it wanted to see more evidence to support the government’s decision.

“Australia works very hard to protect the fragile nature of the land where we grow things and to really manage the risk of pests, diseases and weeds,” chief executive Joanna Cave said.

“So it’s a real shame to chip a hole in that armor on the basis of no evidence, as far as we can see.”

Ms. Jabour said the mandatory country-of-origin labelling of flowers had never been more relevant.

“If you’re going to dismantle the policy, you’ll need to bring in labelling requirements that clearly states, ‘do not propagate,’” she said.

Public submissions on the draft report into the review of the devitalization of cut flowers close in February of 2026.

DAFF said it would continue its broader pest risk analysis of imported cut flowers, focusing on bacteria, viruses and fungi.

Read the original article on Australia's ABC Rural RoundUp Newsletter »

Read more from the "In the Weeds" Series »