The Clock Is Ticking for Glyphosate: Decisions from Supreme Court, EPA, and State Legislatures Expected in 2026

By Emily Bass
Published January 16, 2026 on The Breakthrough Institute

2026 is set to be a pivotal year for the fate of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and other weed-killing pesticides used by farmers. The U.S. Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and state legislatures are all set to consider changes to pesticide policy this year. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering whether to take up Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, which, if decided, could dramatically reshape the national debate over glyphosate and pesticide regulation. 

As a backdrop to these forthcoming decisions, the only manufacturer of glyphosate in the United States, Bayer, is embroiled in tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging links between exposure to the herbicide and cancer. The wave of litigation, relentless since Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018, is costing the company. Bayer’s CEO recently warned they could be forced to pull glyphosate off the market if litigation isn’t contained this year. Such a move would affect more than 90% of the corn, soy, and cotton grown in the U.S. 

EPA Says Glyphosate is Safe

Decades of independent research and evaluations by regulatory agencies have continued to assert that glyphosate is safe when used as directed and has had a positive net contribution to social welfare. Glyphosate-based products are licensed for use in over 100 countries. Here in the U.S., the EPA maintains that glyphosate does not cause cancer—and crucially, has approved the Roundup label without a cancer warning. And yet, juries in federal courts have repeatedly sided with plaintiffs claiming Bayer failed to warn consumers of cancer risk under various state laws. 

A legal split has emerged in federal courts over whether failure-to-warn claims brought under state law should be preempted or blocked by federal law and EPA’s labeling requirements. In response, state legislatures have taken matters into their own hands. As this trend continues, a growing patchwork of pesticide labeling laws and exposure of companies to legal liability threatens to make American farmers’ zip codes the biggest predictor of what seeds and inputs are used on their operations.

To avoid this eventuality, the Supreme Court should opt to take up the glyphosate case. A decision clarifying whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the primary federal law regulating pesticides, definitively preempts failure-to-warn claims brought under state law is long overdue and in the best interest of American agriculture.

Status Quo Expected from Congress and Federal Government 

Neither EPA nor the U.S. Congress are likely to disrupt the use of glyphosate in the U.S. this year, making the Supreme Court’s decision even more consequential.

The EPA which reviews pesticide registrations every 15 years, is due to complete an updated human health risk assessment for glyphosate in 2026. A scientific journal’s retraction of a single 25-year-old glyphosate safety study is pouring gas on public calls for the government to revoke glyphosate’s registration. However, EPA’s review of a preponderance of scientific evidence is expected to reassert glyphosate’s safety for humans and limited ecological impacts, and to approve new label changes that help mitigate risks like spray drift and herbicide resistance. 

That EPA resisted bending to Make American Healthy Again interests in 2025 further signals the likelihood that the agency will stick to a science-based review of glyphosate. For example, in 2025, despite several court rulings banning previous dicamba registrations and risking the outrage of anti-pesticide interest groups, EPA announced plans to register 3 new dicamba herbicides for use on genetically modified cotton and soybeans with new restrictions to be included on the product labels.

Despite speculation that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), under the leadership of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., could wield its jurisdiction over pesticide residue limits to discourage glyphosate’s use on food grade crops, FDA is expected to maintain the status quo. FDA’s deputy commissioner for human foods, Kyle Diamantas, has been extremely deferential to EPA, emphasizing it is not up to FDA to shape policy on pesticides. 

FDA released new data from their regular residue monitoring program at the close of 2025 showing over 97% of domestic human food products tested under EPA’s tolerance limits for pesticide residues, continuing a trend consistent with past years. Further, the latest data from USDA’s pesticide data program found 99 percent of samples from 19 commodities of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, nuts and fish had pesticide residues below benchmarks set by EPA.

Congress, in theory, could change the landscape of pesticide use through meaningful changes to FIFRA. Lawmakers could also affect pesticide manufacturers’ legal liability. Leaders in the House of Representatives, like Chairman of the Agriculture Committee G.T. Thompson, have been vocal proponents of passing pesticide labeling language that emphasizes individual states cannot require pesticide labels to go beyond labeling requirements put forward by the EPA. 

However, Congress will struggle to pass a new farm bill this year, the likely vehicle for any such changes. Further, a separate attempt to add pesticide labeling language to this year’s budget bill for EPA failed. With business as usual expected from the Feds, states legislatures have a stronger chance to usher in a new era of pesticide policy this year.

State Legislatures to Watch Instead

Diverging court decisions in different districts and a growing divergence in state-level laws are creating a growing patchwork of pesticide labeling requirements across states. In response, Bayer, other pesticide manufactures, and agriculture groups are backing state legislation to affirm states stay in lock step with EPA. 

Debate over state-level legislation is expected to dominate the first half of the year with neither Bayer nor its detractors willing to wait out a Supreme Court decision. North Dakota and Georgia have already passed laws affirming that EPA-approved labels for pesticides are sufficient and that manufacturers cannot be held liable for failing to warn consumers of health risks above and beyond those required by the EPA. 

The states still retain the right to regulate the sale and use of individual pesticides within state bounds, and the Georgia law specifically emphasizes that manufacturers can still be held liable in instances of corporate misconduct, including if a company knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed material information regarding human health risks to obtain or maintain a pesticide’s registration.

Simultaneously, MAHA oriented groups and long-time opponents to industrial agriculture, like The Center for Food Safety, are supporting efforts that allow states and local governments to implement warnings or restrictions that go beyond federal standards. Debate over pesticide legislation is expected to heat up in states like Missouri, the historical home to Monsanto, where many cases over glyphosate have been filed, and Iowa, where MAHA interests are not only pushing legislation but also backing a GOP candidate for governor. 

Regardless of what you think about glyphosate or dicamba or any other active ingredient, this precedent sets up a future where a range of crop protection tools and chemistries are subject to wildly different legal risks and labeling requirements in different states. This could reasonably lead to companies deciding to sell certain pesticides in, say, North Dakota but not South Dakota—a terrible idea in a time when U.S. farmers in every state are trying to keep input costs low as they compete with farmers from Brazil and elsewhere. Growing decisions should be guided by factors like weather and soil conditions, market opportunities, and yield potential. Instead, a patchwork of state laws will drive a future where growing decisions, and yield gains, are limited by the types of seeds and inputs available by state.

Waiting on the Supreme Court

Should the Supreme Court opt to take up Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the justices will clarify whether FIFRA preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims where the EPA has repeatedly concluded that a cancer warning is not required.

The Trump administration weighed in on Bayer’s side, asserting that the federal law invalidates the state-level lawsuits alleging the company’s product was responsible for causing cancer. In a brief filed by the U.S. Solicitor General, the administration argues that the Missouri Court of Appeals—which upheld a $1.25 million verdict for plaintiff John Durnell—was incorrect, as allowing state juries to impose liability undermines the EPA’s consistent, science-based reviews of glyphosate.

A ruling in Bayer’s favor would dramatically reshape the national debate over glyphosate and pesticide regulation. If the Supreme Court finds that federal labeling requirements preempt state-law failure-to-warn claims, it could effectively end thousands of pending Roundup lawsuits nationwide, removing the existential threat of litigation for Bayer (at least regarding their labels).

Conversely, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiff, Bayer and other pesticide manufacturers will continue to be held liable over failure-to-warn claims. In turn, this could prompt companies to eat the cost of changing their product labels to comply with an array of state-by-state requirements or even spur Congress to write a new uniformity provision in FIFRA that even more clearly delineates EPA’s sole authority over national pesticide labeling. 

The Stakes for Glyphosate, Farmers, and Policy Uncertainty

With federal agencies and the U.S. Congress set to maintain the status quo, the real threat to glyphosate’s future lies in the burgeoning patchwork of state laws. By failing to hear this case, the Supreme Court would leave the door open to consider future cases on the topic of pesticide preemption. Bayer will continue to defer to previous guidance from EPA that the company cannot use labels with warnings EPA has not approved. 

Some states will seek to follow in North Dakota and Georgia’s footsteps to limit manufacturer liability, while others seek to implement warnings that exceed federal standards. This divergence will create prolonged policy uncertainty and a fractured market where farmers’ access to inputs are limited by state lines. 

The stakes for the future of glyphosate-based herbicides can’t be overstated. If the Supreme Court leaves this matter to play out in states, either by opting to not hear the Monsanto Co. v. Durnell case at all or by ruling in favor of Durnell, the resulting legal and regulatory volatility could become untenable for Bayer and force glyphosate off the market. This would burden U.S. corn and soy farmers, in particular, with an estimated $1.5 billion in annual costs. 

It would also reverse decades of yield gains and no-till conservation efforts meant to slow soil erosion. Instead of turning to mechanical tillage, replacing glyphosate with older herbicide alternatives is more expensive and comes with its own risks. 

Alternatives like dicamba often drift to neighboring fields and pose higher risks to aquatic species and non-target plants while others like paraquat are far more toxic than glyphosate.

Today’s legal gridlock serves no one. By taking up Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the Supreme Court can provide a definitive ruling on whether FIFRA preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims and blunt the chaos that comes with an array of state-level mandates.

Read the original article on The Breakthrough Institute »

The Glyphosate Elephant in the Regen Room

By Nick Easen
Published July 10, 2025 on Wicked Leeks

Glyphosate, also known as Roundup, is the world’s most popular herbicide. Globally its use continues to rise because glyphosate is so good at what it does – a broad-spectrum weedkiller – but it’s also highly controversial. The chemical maker Bayer, formerly Monsanto, has shelled out billions of pounds (British currency) to settle cancer claims linked to its use. By its own admission over 100,000 lawsuits have been brought against them, thousands still remain.

It’s so widely applied that since 1991 there’s been a 1,500% rise in use on British veg crops, according to government stats. For arable, there’s been a 914% rise, with two million kilos used on over two million hectares. Worryingly, and by the state’s own admission, three quarters of all UK farmland is at risk of some form of pesticide pollution. It’s no wonder that glyphosate now turns up in much of our food. 

Nor is it surprising that scientists have discovered glyphosate resistance in one particular weed, Italian ryegrass, due to its widespread use. This affects wheat fields in particular and is the first confirmed case in the UK. Much like antibiotic resistance which can develop when medication is too freely prescribed, crop resistance is a warning sign for farmers to reduce their reliance on this herbicide.

Where things get complicated involves the intersection between regenerative agriculture – which champions soil health – and the regen movement’s widespread use of glyphosate.

You might be surprised to learn that glyphosate plays a major role in regenerative agriculture – it does so because it allows farmers to kill off weeds and unwanted invasives while minimizing ploughing and soil disturbance. On the one hand, this is a good thing, since it leaves carbon in the ground rather than releasing it back into the atmosphere, and preserves the soil biome. So called no-till or min-till can be achieved by applying the herbicide; it’s also used as a desiccant to dry out crops before harvest. 

This is why the discussion on glyphosate and regenerative agriculture is a hot topic. It also puts the regen movement in the hot-seat – because unlike organic agriculture, which must adhere to rigorous standards and meet testing criteria – regenerative farming has no set legal definitions or regulations, certifying body, or standardizing authority.

Awash with Glyphosate

In the US, most no-till systems are now so heavily dependent on herbicides to manage weeds that a staggering one-third of America’s total pesticide use can be attributed to no- and minimum-till corn and soy production, according to a recent report by Friends of the Earth. Alarmingly, global agrochemical companies are now touting no-till alongside regen-ag programmes.

“This looks like a way for global agribusinesses to sell their products again, just in a different way.  We’re not on the same scale as the US where glyphosate use is linked to planting genetically modified soy and corn, which is herbicide resistant. However, most conventional regenerative systems here in the UK will certainly be using glyphosate to control weeds or as a pre-harvest desiccant,” explains Gareth Morgan, Head of Farming Policy at the Soil Association.

“It’s a difficult line to tread, because the regenerative movement has brought a lot of incredible energy and engagement, especially around soil health. The problem has been the corporate appropriation of what’s going on here.” 

And in the same way that there’s no nationwide set of standards or labelling for regenerative agriculture that’s widely adopted either by the sector or consumers at large, there’s also no formalised way of monitoring, recognising and rewarding regenerative farmers who wish to reduce their dependence on herbicides such as glyphosate. For instance, Regen Agri talks about “minimising” or “reducing” pesticide use, but nothing definitive. It’s an issue that needs addressing.  

“If you want your produce to be free of pesticides, right now you have to buy organic; there isn’t an  alternative. Regen on the packet won’t specify this. Organic systems are quite close to regenerative. There will likely be livestock. You’ll have constant cover crops. You’ll have soil-centred agriculture. It won’t be no till, but it’ll be very soil focused, that’s the essence of organic,” details Morgan. 

Time to Reduce its Use

The National Farmers’ Union argue that glyphosate use is vital to British farming and its ban would see lower crop yields and increased production costs. At the same time, the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is campaigning for a phase-out and a reduction of applications. 

“Its use is being legitimised by the ever-powerful pesticide lobby and I include in that the National Farmers Union, and this is really undermining things and it’s a big problem. I don’t think you can call any agriculture that uses glyphosate widely, truly regenerative,” points out Nick Mole, policy officer at the Pesticide Action Network. 

“The message that’s been rammed home for decades is that glyphosate is harmless and it isn’t. We need to challenge the idea that glyphosate use is offset by the benefits that no till brings. The issue is that there are ALSO no drivers for change right now. Its use is divisive and there is a rainbow of opinions on its use. What’s frightening is we’re starting to see the corporate capture of the term ‘regenerative’. It’s being used to greenwash.” 

Another big issue is that there is a lack of granular data on glyphosate use at the farm level in the UK, which makes it difficult to monitor or legislate on. There are no figures on how much is being used on regenerative farms in the country either. Certainly, progressive regenerative farmers are aware that glyphosate use is an issue and they are on a journey to reduce applications. 

“Glyphosate is just one tool in the farmer’s toolbox, along with ploughing. It doesn’t have to be used every year. We could use it once every ten years to get the weed population under control. I think it’s about finding that balance going forward, and really not trying to make it a polarising debate where farmers either use herbicide or use a plough, but I think that’s really difficult,” states Helen Metcalfe, research scientist at Rothamsted Research.

Don’t Demonise the Issue

Many regenerative farmers are now using integrated methods of weed management including mechanical weeding, diversifying crop rotation, and introducing grass lays into rotations to make weeds less competitive with their crops so they can reduce herbicide use. 

“Regenerative farmers don’t particularly want to use glyphosate. We need to be building on this and not demonise the topic. By opening this up for discussion we can have clarity especially around corporate appropriation – what’s the agenda of agrochemical companies who are pushing this stuff? Are they genuinely committed to a journey of sustainability, or are they looking for a way to market their products – are they honest brokers in this process?” asks the Soil Association’s Head of Farming policy. 

The only weapon that consumers have is their wallet and to start asking questions about where their groceries come from and whether glyphosate is used, especially with supermarkets such as Waitrose who are promoting regenerative farming, even though it has banned glyphosate from its shelves and Tesco’s adopting regenerative bread from Wildfarmed – education and awareness is key, so is government policy change over time. 

For instance, in the EU, farms can no longer use glyphosate as a pre-harvest desiccant, whereas it is still used to dry out crops here in the UK – we are lagging behind Europe. “A ban on pre-harvest desiccation in Britain would be a start. This would be a big change for some British farmers, but it’s already happening in Europe,” says Mole.  

He adds: “There’s many regen farmers doing an awful lot of good. However, this particular issue opens them up to criticism, which is justified. The starting point is for the powers that be within the regen movement to admit that there is a glyphosate problem and say they want address it. This would show good will,” concludes Mole.

Read the original article on Wicked Leeks »

Outrage at European Science Center as Director Ousted After Study on Glyphosate

By Carey Gillam
Published January 24, 2026 on The New Lede

A leading European chemical safety institute has ousted the director of its cancer research center after the director led an extensive testing program into the safety of the pesticide glyphosate, sparking concerns about chemical industry influence into what has been an independent research institution.

Dr. Daniele Mandrioli joined the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, Italy in 2012 and has directed the Institute’s Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center since 2020. The research facility conducts toxicology studies on a range of environmental substances to determine their carcinogenicity and other potential health implications.

The institute’s work has been used to inform regulatory decision-making and policy work on multiple chemicals, including vinyl chloride, benzene, and formaldehyde, and the group says it collaborates with the US National Toxicology Program as well as the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. It touts ”50 YEARS OF INDEPENDENT RESEARCH” on its website and lists the World Health Organization as a partner.

But the dismissal of Mandrioli and the suspicion that it is tied to his work on glyphosate, has roiled scientific circles.

In a Jan. 21 letter to Ramazzini Institute President Loretta Masotti, Dr. Philip Landrigan, a US environmental epidemiologist and pediatrician who leads Boston College’s global public health program and who also is head of the International Scientific Advisory Committee of the Ramazzini Institute, described Mandrioli as a “superb scientist” and complained that the committee had not been consulted on the termination. The decision appeared to be due to industry pressure, the letter alleges.

“Dr. Mandrioli … has been subjected to vicious attacks by the chemical industry because the findings of the Institute’s independent research have cost these companies money and hurt their bottom line,” Landrigan wrote. “The attacks on Dr. Mandrioli have increased in intensity in recent months since publication of the results of the Global Glyphosate Study, which found that glyphosate causes dose-related increases in cancer at multiple anatomic sites in experimental animals, most notably increases in leukemia.”

“We are deeply concerned that your decision may signal an end to the independence of the Ramazzini Institute’s research,” the letter states.

When asked to comment about the concerns, Masotti said that the “relationship with Dr. Mandrioli was terminated by mutual agreement,” and was not due to pressure from the chemical industry. She said the glyphosate studies will continue.

“Our values of independent research have never been questioned. The Ramazzini Institute Cancer Research Center is an internationally recognized center of excellence, renowned for its numerous and exceptional contributions to environmental research, and recognized for its scientific integrity and independence,” Masotti said.

Under Mandrioli’s leadership, the research center has been focused recently on studying multiple potential health impacts from glyphosate, which is the world’s most widely used weed killing chemical. It is commonly known as the chief ingredient in Roundup brands made popular by Monsanto, a company now owned by the German conglomerate Bayer.

Many scientific studies over the years have linked glyphosate and Roundup to cancer, and the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015 classified the pesticide as probably carcinogenic to humans.

Close to 200,000 people sued Monsanto and Bayer in the US alleging their cancers are due to exposure to the glyphosate-based herbicides.

But Monsanto and subsequently Bayer maintain there is no valid science linking glyphosate to cancer and have furiously fought back against scientists and others who dispute that position, including those with the World Health Organization.

Last summer, Mandrioli and the research center results of a two-year study Mandrioli said showed ”solid and independent scientific evidence of the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides.” The study found, among other things, that co-formulants in glyphosate herbicide products may enhance the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, particularly in the case of leukemia.

The research was part of a “Global Glyphosate Study” involving scientists from Boston College, George Mason University, King’s College London, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Scientific Centre of Monaco, University of Bologna, the Institute of Agricultural Biology and Biotechnology of the Italian National Research Council the Italian National Institute of Health, and the National Food Safety Committee of the Italian Ministry of Health.

In 2022, the group published prior findings showing adverse effects of glyphosate at doses that are currently considered safe.

Bayer responded by accusing the Ramazzini Institute of having “a long history of making misleading claims about the safety of various products.” The company did not respond to a request for comment about Mandrioli’s dismissal.

Mandrioli said in an interview that he has been subject to “an incredible amount of attacks” because of the glyphosate study.

“Unfortunately, my experience is similar to what too many independent scientists are increasingly going through,” he said.

The research center is currently completing four new manuscripts on pesticide testing. It is not clear when those might be published.

Members of Collegium Ramazzini, a scientific academy of physicians and scientists from 45 countries, said in a statement that the process of terminating Mandrioli was “non-transparent” and “secretive”, and offered no rational explanation other than to say it was part of a “reorganization.”

The group said that the 2025 glyphosate study was “the largest international toxicological study ever performed on glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides” and that “attacks and defamatory campaigns” against Mandrioli  ”dramatically escalated” after the 2025 study was released.

The attacks sought to “undermine his credibility and the credibility of his team’s independent research findings on the toxicity of hazardous chemicals,” the group wrote.

Francesco Forastiere, a scientist with the National Research Council in Palermo, Italy and a visiting professor at Imperial College, London, said the dismissal “lacked justification and was abrupt.”

“There was no transparency in the operation,” said Forastiere, who sits on an advisory panel to the Institute. “I am astonished.”

Read the original article on The New Lede »

Read more from the "In the Weeds" Series »