Monsanto announces Roundup class settlement agreement to resolve current and future claims

Published February 17, 2026 on Bayer

Monsanto has announced a proposed U.S. nationwide class settlement designed to resolve current and future Roundup claims alleging Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) injuries through a long-term claims program. Leading plaintiff law firms representing the class filed a motion today seeking preliminary approval of the settlement in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Mo. 

The proposed class combined with Supreme Court review in the Durnell case are independently necessary and mutually reinforcing steps in the company’s multipronged strategy designed to significantly contain the Roundup litigation.

“The proposed class settlement agreement, together with the Supreme Court case, provides an essential path out of the litigation uncertainty and enables us to devote our full attention to furthering the innovations that lie at the core of our mission: Health for all, Hunger for none,” said Bill Anderson, CEO of Bayer.

“This litigation and the resulting cost underscore the need for guidance from the Supreme Court on clear regulation in American agriculture. The class settlement and Supreme Court case are both necessary to help bring the strongest, most certain and most timely containment to this litigation.”

To fund the class, Monsanto will make declining capped annual payments for up to 21 years totaling up to 7.25 billion U.S. dollars, following court approval. The long-term payment stream will provide the company with both greater certainty and control regarding its litigation costs for current claims and potential future claimants.

Separately, Monsanto also has reached agreements to settle certain other Roundup (glyphosate) cases on confidential terms. Additionally, earlier this year Monsanto settled eight remaining PCB verdicts related to the Sky Valley Education Center (SVEC) in the state of Washington on confidential terms. Monsanto also previously resolved PCB environmental cases with the U.S. states of Illinois and West Virginia.

Subject to a final audit, these resolutions including litigation costs will lead to an increase of the provision and liabilities for litigation from 7.8 billion euros (including 6.5 billion euros for glyphosate) as of September 30, 2025, to 11.8 billion euros (including 9.6 billion euros for glyphosate). 

Monsanto is taking the Roundup-related actions solely to contain the litigation, and the settlement agreements do not contain any admission of liability or wrongdoing. Indeed, leading regulators worldwide, including the U.S. EPA and EU regulatory bodies, continue to conclude based on an extensive body of science, that glyphosate-based herbicides – critical tools that farmers rely on to produce affordable food and feed the world – can be used safely and are not carcinogenic.

In addition to these settlements, the company will continue to pursue other elements of its multi-pronged strategy including supporting legislation at the state and federal level, regulatory actions and other measures that are intended to help achieve regulatory clarity and contain litigation risk. Regulatory uncertainty jeopardizes the availability of current and future agricultural innovations, with potentially severe consequences for farmers and the American food system.

The Roundup settlements follow a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review of the Durnell case. The expectation of Supreme Court review of the cross-cutting question in this litigation – whether state claims based on failure-to-warn theories are preempted by federal law – helped make this settlement possible. The Supreme Court case is unaffected by the settlement and is critical to resolving substantial outstanding damage awards subject to pending appeals, which are not covered by the settlement. 

A positive ruling on the question before the Supreme Court should largely foreclose present and future claims based on state label-based warning theories – including the pending appeals, as well as opt-outs from the class. A favorable ruling by the Supreme Court would provide essential regulatory clarity for companies who seek to bring currently approved and new products to market, addressing their ability to serve U.S. farmers and consumers.

The class settlement is designed to resolve claims relating to Roundup exposure and NHL regardless of legal theory. Thus, it resolves claims that could remain subject to litigation after the Supreme Court’s decision, which would prolong the litigation and delay closure.

About the class program

The settlement covers plaintiffs who allege exposure to Roundup prior to February 17, 2026, and have a medical diagnosis of NHL now; or receive a medical diagnosis of NHL before the end of a 16-year period following final approval of the agreement.

The proposed class settlement differs markedly from the prior class settlement put forth by the company in 2020. The new proposed settlement is a long-term compensation program, with funding for up to 21 years,. It is structured to address the needs of both present and future claimants through a common claims program, managed by a professional claims administrator. 

The prior proposed class settlement was a short-term program limited to 4 years with far less funding. Future litigation beyond 4  years would have been subject to determinations of an expert science panel, a feature that is not part of the current proposed program.

The settlement is subject to court approval. As part of the approval process, members of the class will receive notice and have the opportunity to opt out of the settlement. Monsanto will have the right to terminate the settlement without claims payments if the number of opt outs is excessive.

Read the original article on Bayer »

Trump Signs Order Protecting Glyphosate, Phosphorus Production

By Ryan Hanrahan
Published February 19, 2026 on Farm Policy News

Progressive Farmer’s Chris Clayton reported that by “invoking the Defense Production Act, President Donald Trump on Wednesday designated glyphosate-based herbicides and elemental phosphorus as critical to national defense and ordered Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to prioritize and secure domestic supplies.”

“The order also grants legal immunity to domestic producers that comply with federal directives and gives USDA authority to direct production and control distribution if necessary,” Clayton reported. “Citing the Defense Production Act, Trump declared phosphorus and glyphosate products are essential not only for agriculture but also for military readiness as well. The threat of scarcity for either phosphorus or glyphosate would leave the U.S. vulnerable.

“At USDA, Rollins will consult with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and work to ‘determine the proper nationwide priorities and allocation of all the materials, services, and facilities necessary to ensure a continued and adequate supply of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides. Rollins will issue the rules and orders necessary to implement the order.

“The order also tells Rollins to protect domestic suppliers from going out of business, but also shielding those companies from regulatory or financial pressures. Rollins also should ensure any rule or regulation ‘does not place the corporate viability of any domestic producer of elemental phosphorus or glyphosate-based herbicides at risk.’”

CNBC’s Garrett Downs reported that a White House Fact sheet on the executive order said Trump signed it to ‘ensure domestic production of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides, the loss of which would cripple critical supply chains.’”

“A lack of either chemical, the fact sheet said, could leave our defense industrial base and food supply vulnerable to hostile foreign actors, since there is only ‘one domestic producer of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides.

Clayton reported that “when it comes to domestic phosphate production, Mosaic states the company is responsible for 74% of ‘concentrated phosphate crop nutrients’ across North America. Combined with Nutrien, the two companies control more than 90% of phosphate fertilizer sales to U.S. farmers, the group Farm Action cites. Bayer (Monsanto) is the only domestic supplier of glyphosate. The Wall Street Journal reported last year that Bayer produces roughly 40% of the world’s glyphosate at its U.S. facilities.”

Bayer Applauds the Executive Order 

Reuters’ Patricia Weiss reported that “the U.S. President’s executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to ensure a U.S. supply of glyphosate underscores U.S. farmers’ needs to have access to the herbicide, Bayer said on Thursday, adding the move would not lead to shortages in other countries.

“Bayer said last August that it could be forced to stop U.S. production of the widely-used farming weedkiller unless regulatory changes are made to stave off litigation that has been weighing on the German company. Bayer is the only company producing glyphosate in the United States but the farming sector there also imports large volumes of generic copies from China.”

MAHA, Environmental Groups Furious 

The New York Times’ Hiroko Tabuchi and Sheryl Gay Stolberg reported that “the move immediately set off alarms among supporters of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s ‘Make America Healthy Again’ movement, and appeared to put Mr. Kennedy in an awkward position.

“But in a statement issued through a spokesman Wednesday night, the health secretary said he supported the president,” Tabuchi and Stolberg reported. “‘Donald Trump’s executive order puts America first where it matters most — our defense readiness and our food supply,’ Kennedy said. ‘We must safeguard America’s national security first, because all of our priorities depend on it.

“Some of Kennedy’s supporters, as well as environmental groups, were furious. MAHA voters were promised health reform, not chemical entrenchment,’ said Vani Hari, a healthy eating advocate and supporter of Kennedy’s nutrition agenda. She called the executive order ‘a direct assault on MAHA’ and ‘a gift to pesticide and chemical industry lobbies at the expense of human health.’“

“Ken Cook, the president and co-founder of Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization that has also supported parts of Kennedy’s agenda, said, ‘I can’t envision a bigger middle finger to every MAHA mom than this.’”

Read the original article on Farm Policy News »

Kennedy defends Trump glyphosate order; MAHA erupts as midterms approach

By Garrett Downs
Published February 19, 2026 on CNBC

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. defended President Donald Trump‘s executive order spurring the domestic production of the weed killer glyphosate, as his Make America Healthy Again movement reels from the president’s embrace of the chemical they despise.

Trump on Wednesday night signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to compel the domestic production of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides. Glyphosate is the chemical in Bayer-Monsanto’s Roundup and is the most commonly used herbicide for a slew of U.S. crops. Trump, in the order, said shortages of both phosphorus and glyphosate would pose a risk to national security.

Kennedy backed the president in a statement to CNBC Thursday morning. 

“Donald Trump’s Executive Order puts America first where it matters most — our defense readiness and our food supply,” he said. “We must safeguard America’s national security first, because all of our priorities depend on it. When hostile actors control critical inputs, they weaken our security. By expanding domestic production, we close that gap and protect American families.”

But Kennedy’s MAHA coalition that supported Trump in the 2024 presidential election hates glyphosate, which has been alleged to cause cancer in myriad lawsuits. Now, the executive order threatens to unravel that coalition ahead of the 2026 midterm elections that could loosen the president’s grip on Washington.  

“Just as the large MAHA base begins to consider what to do at midterms, the President issues an EO to expand domestic glyphosate production,” Kelly Ryerson, a prominent MAHA activist known as The Glyphosate Girl, said in a post on X. “The very same carcinogenic pesticide that MAHA cares about most.”

Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, a watchdog that has pushed back against chemicals in food for years, said in a statement that he “can’t envision a bigger middle finger to every MAHA mom than this.”

“Elevating glyphosate to a national security priority is the exact opposite of what MAHA voters were promised,” Cook said. “If Secretary Kennedy remains at HHS after this, it will be impossible to argue that his past warnings about glyphosate were anything more than campaign rhetoric designed to win trust — and votes.”

Kennedy, a former environmental attorney, notably once won a nearly $290 million case against Monsanto for a man who claimed his cancer was caused by Roundup. The executive order came down one day after Bayer proposed paying $7.25 billion to settle a series of lawsuits claiming Roundup causes cancer. 

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., knocked Trump for signing “an EO protecting cancer causing Glyphosate in our foods.”

Glyphosate is a critical chemical to American agriculture. It’s applied to many key cash crops, such as corn and soybeans, and has been defended by agricultural trade organizations. Phosphorus is a key input to the creation of glyphosate, which the White House argues is necessary to maintain food security. Elemental phosphorus is also used in the manufacture of some military materials.

“Thank you, President Trump, for acknowledging the importance of glyphosate-based herbicides in American agriculture,” the House Agriculture Committee Republicans said Wednesday night in an X post. “This is a vital step forward in ensuring a domestic supply of this critical crop input remains available for our producers.”

House Agriculture Chair Rep. G.T. Thompson, R-Pa., is trying to push a farm bill through Congress this year — a legislative package that covers federal farm support and nutrition subsidies. He’s also come under fire from MAHA recently for a provision in that bill that would block state and local pesticide regulations from differing from federal guidance.

Read the original article on CNBC »

Roundup’s Long-Standing Safety Claims Are Being Reexamined After ‘Serious Ethical Concerns’ Emerge

By Stacey Leasca
Published February 11, 2026 on Food & Wine

A critical part of reading and understanding research is assessing the sources of funding for studies. Usually, it’s easy to find right at the bottom of the study’s disclosure statements. It often notes whether the funding is from a university or a nonprofit, or whether the researchers were funded by a company to specifically study a product. 

It’s a foundation of research ethics. But, like all industries, science can have some bad apples, too. And that appears to be the case for one rather important scientific article published at the turn of the century.

In 2000, researchers published findings from a study on glyphosate, the active ingredient used in Roundup, which is sprayed on crops worldwide. At the time, the published study reported no evidence that it caused cancer. However, the journal that published it, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, is retracting the study over what it calls serious ethical concerns.

“Concerns were raised regarding the authorship of this paper, validity of the research findings in the context of misrepresentation of the contributions by the authors and the study sponsor, and potential conflicts of interest of the authors,” the journal’s co-editor-in-chief, Professor Martin van den Berg, Ph.D., wrote in the retraction. 

“As the handling (co)Editor-in-Chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, I reached out to the sole surviving author, Gary M. Williams, and sought an explanation for the various concerns which have been listed in detail below. We did not receive any response from Professor. Williams. Hence, this article is formally retracted from the journal.”

The decision, van den Berg added, was made after a 2017 lawsuit, filed by people who claimed to have developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma — a blood cancer that affects lymphocytes — after being exposed to the herbicide, uncovered emails between Monsanto executives and the authors suggesting that Monsanto employees contributed to writing the paper while ensuring that these employees were never named.

“This lack of transparency raises serious ethical concerns regarding the independence and accountability of the authors of this article and the academic integrity of the carcinogenicity studies presented,” van den Berg said.

Van den Berg stated that the emails also indicated that Monsanto likely paid the authors for their work, a fact not disclosed in the final study. “The potential financial compensation raises significant ethical concerns and calls into question the apparent academic objectivity of the authors in this publication, which concerns and questions have not been answered,” Van den Berg explained.

Because of this potential relationship with Monsanto, he added, “It is unclear how much of the conclusions of the authors were influenced by external contributions of Monsanto without proper acknowledgments.”

The reason this ever came to light, Science explained, is thanks to two other researchers who filed the initial retraction request. They were Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at Harvard University, and her then-postdoctoral researcher, Alexander Kaurov. “My worry is that people will keep citing it,” Oreskes said.

New research is already taking the flawed study’s place. In 2025, Food & Wine reported on two new studies, one published in Scientific Reports that offered fresh insight into how glyphosate could bind to several enzymes and a protein called plasminogen, which are key to the human body’s ability to remodel tissue. When these break down, it often leads to kidney disease and cancer. 

The other, published in the journal Environmental Health, found that rats exposed to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides had higher rates of cancer, including increased occurrences of leukemia, as well as skin, liver, thyroid, and bone cancers.

“Our study provides solid and independent scientific evidence of the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides,” Daniele Mandrioli, the director of the institute’s Clesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, said in a statement at the time.

Why funding disclosures matter in scientific research

In scientific publishing, researchers must disclose who funded their work and whether any outside organization played a role in shaping the study. These disclosures don’t automatically invalidate research. However, they provide readers, regulators, and other scientists with critical context for interpreting the findings.

When funding sources or contributions are concealed, it becomes difficult to assess whether a study’s conclusions were influenced by financial or corporate interests. That lack of transparency can undermine trust not only in a single paper but also in the scientific process itself — especially when research is used to guide public health policy and regulatory decisions.

Kaurov also told Science that additional retractions may be forthcoming, noting that he and Oreskes submitted a retraction request to Critical Reviews in Toxicology for a 2013 paper that fully disclosed Monsanto’s role. He added, “It’s not the end of the story.” 

As van den Berg concluded in the retraction, this 2000 paper had a “significant impact on regulatory decision-making regarding glyphosate and Roundup for decades. Given its status as a cornerstone in the assessment of glyphosate’s safety, it is imperative that the integrity of this review article and its conclusions are not compromised. The concerns specified here necessitate this retraction to preserve the scientific integrity of the journal.”

Read the original article on Food & Wine »

Read more from the "In the Weeds" Series »