U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Bayer, Backs Federal Labeling

By John Dobberstein
Published June 25 on No-Till Farmer

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that federal labeling requirements can override state failure-to-warn claims on pesticide safety, potentially ending billions in liability claims in state courts against Monsanto over its Roundup herbicide.

Bayer, which acquired Monsanto several years ago, said lawyers are still analyzing the ruling but added the decision is, “good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation,” in a statement posted to the company’s website.  

“It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles. The ruling should result in the dismissal of current warning-based claims and bar future failure-to-warn claims.”

The company said Monsanto will continue to pursue final approval of a class settlement and other elements of its, “multi-pronged strategy to contain the Roundup litigation. The Supreme Court’s decision provides much-needed clarity on the role of federal, science-based regulation and reaffirms the value of sound science in the regulatory process.”

Thursday’s news is a major boost for most stakeholders in farm production — especially no-tillers who rely on glyphosate products to terminate cover crops and manage glyphosate-tolerant crops so they can avoid tillage to control weeds. 

The American Soybean Assn. (ASA) hailed the ruling, saying farmers, “depend on clear, consistent labeling and a uniform regulatory framework to use pesticides safely and responsibly.

Earlier this year, ASA joined 11 other agricultural organizations in an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court defending farmer access to crop protection tools against continued threats of, “regulatory overreach and activist litigation.

“For decades, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, along with regulatory authorities around the world, has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk when used as directed. State-level requirements have led to a burdensome regulatory patchwork that conflicts with EPA-approved labels and creates confusion, undermining confidence in the regulatory process and limiting access to essential crop protection tools.”

Read the original article on No-Till Farmer »

Bayer Seeks Up to 446% Tariffs on Chinese Glyphosate Days After Farm Groups Helped Save Roundup in Court

Bayer is facing a severe backlash from U.S. farm groups after petitioning for antidumping and countervailing duties of up to 446.47% on Chinese glyphosate imports, just five days after those same organizations helped the company win a Supreme Court ruling shielding it from Roundup cancer lawsuits.

Agricultural leaders, including the National Corn Growers Association and American Soybean Association, accuse Bayer of betrayal, warning the tariffs will spike input costs for already struggling farmers. A Texas A&M study shows similar fertilizer duties cost growers $6.9 billion from 2021 to 2025.

Bayer argues the move is necessary to sustain domestic glyphosate production, but the timing — one day after the White House suspended Moroccan phosphate tariffs — has intensified criticism. The International Trade Commission now has roughly two months for a preliminary ruling, with a final Commerce Department decision potentially a year away.

The German pharmaceutical and agricultural giant, through its U.S. subsidiary Monsanto and affiliate Ruveon LLC, filed petitions with the Commerce Department and the U.S. International Trade Commission on June 30 seeking antidumping and countervailing duties ranging from 68.9% to 446.47%. The company argues Chinese producers are flooding the U.S. market with glyphosate sold below fair value, a practice known as dumping. 

Bayer is the last company still manufacturing glyphosate domestically, supplying roughly 60% of the U.S. market. The remaining share, much of it from China, would face the direct impact of any new trade barriers.

The timing of the petition stunned agricultural leaders. On June 25, the Supreme Court ruled in Bayer’s favor, effectively ending a wave of state-level lawsuits alleging the company failed to warn users that Roundup could cause cancer. Bayer CEO Bill Anderson celebrated the decision as a win that “provides the regulatory clarity necessary for innovators like us to develop the agricultural tools that guarantee an affordable food supply.” 

That victory was aided by a friend-of-the-court brief filed by 12 major farm organizations, led by the American Farm Bureau Federation and including the National Corn Growers Association, the American Soybean Association, and the National Association of Wheat Growers. The groups warned that a loss for Bayer could jeopardize farmers’ access to a product they described as central to modern weed control.

Now, those same groups are accusing Bayer of betrayal. National Corn Growers Association President Jed Bower, who had called the Supreme Court ruling “great news for all farmers in the country,” reversed course sharply after the tariff petition. Bower said Bayer’s move was “no act of partnership,” adding that it was “purely for the benefit of the company and its shareholders.” He told trade outlet DTN: “We went to bat for them for so long in those court cases. And then they literally win the case and just completely blow us off in one of our worst crises.”

Sam Kieffer, CEO of the National Association of Wheat Growers, initially described the Roundup ruling as “a win for farmers and the broader agricultural community.” By June 30, however, he warned that “tariffs on imported glyphosate will be felt by American farmers,” pointing to wheat growers “already facing stubbornly high input costs, weak commodity prices and continued market uncertainty.” 

The American Soybean Association told Fortune that duties on glyphosate would “limit market competition, threaten cost spikes, and ultimately hurt U.S. farmers” at a time when producers are already contending with “tight margins and significant economic uncertainty.”

A Bayer spokesperson defended the petition in an email to Fortune, stating: “The domestic glyphosate business as it stands today is not sustainable. This action is needed to support long-term U.S. production for American farmers.” The company frames the tariffs as a necessary step to preserve domestic manufacturing capacity, rather than a profit grab at the expense of its customer base.

Farm groups counter with a stark economic warning rooted in recent history. A Texas A&M study found that similar duties imposed on imported phosphate fertilizer cost U.S. crop growers an estimated $6.9 billion between 2021 and 2025. Agricultural organizations argue that glyphosate duties would follow the same pattern: importers would pass higher costs downstream, ultimately squeezing the farmers who rely on the herbicide to protect their crops. 

The comparison is particularly pointed because Bayer’s petition landed on June 30, just one day after President Trump authorized an eight-month suspension of certain duties on Moroccan phosphate fertilizer—a trade barrier farm groups had been lobbying to eliminate for years.

The broader political context adds another layer of complexity. In February, Trump signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act that directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture to ensure a “continued and adequate supply” of glyphosate-based herbicides while protecting the “corporate viability” of domestic producers like Bayer. The order signaled White House support for maintaining U.S. glyphosate production, even if that requires trade restrictions on foreign competitors.

The timeline for a final decision stretches well into next year. The International Trade Commission has roughly two months to issue a preliminary injury determination. The Commerce Department’s full investigation and final ruling could take up to a year. The Commerce Department did not respond to Fortune’s request for comment on the petition.

Whether the farm coalition that backed Bayer in court will now mobilize against the company in the trade proceeding remains uncertain. Patrick Westhoff, former director of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri, told Fortune: “The implications may be different if duties are imposed than if they are not,” suggesting the long-term relationship between Bayer and its agricultural customers could hinge on the outcome of the trade case.

The dispute highlights a deepening tension in American agriculture: the companies that supply essential farm inputs are under financial pressure from global competition, while the farmers who buy those inputs are grappling with weak commodity prices and rising operational costs. 

Bayer’s decision to pursue tariffs on glyphosate — the very chemical that made Roundup a household name and a staple of modern farming — has transformed a legal victory into a public-relations crisis with the customers it claims to protect.

Read the original article on BigGo Finance »

Bayer Consolidates U.S. Glyphosate Business into Ruveon Amidst Controversial CVD Petition

By Jon Adamy, Farm News Media
Published July 8, 2026 on Michigan Farm News

One day after submitting highly controversial antidumping and countervailing (CVD) petitions for glyphosate produced in China, Bayer announced the consolidation of its U.S. glyphosate business into Ruveon LLC.

The move will “optimize and align the business with the specific needs of the U.S. market environment,” the company wrote in a July 2 statement.

“Ruveon will focus on all aspects of U.S. glyphosate, pricing, go-to-market strategies, production and logistics and will be solely responsible for the U.S. glyphosate business,” Bayer wrote.

Based in St. Louis, Missouri, Ruveon remains a Bayer Group business. 

As Michigan Farm News previously reported, Bayer recently filed a 180-page petition with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission, alleging glyphosate produced in China is being sold in the U.S. “at less than fair-market value.” 

Bayer is requesting duties be imposed ranging from 68.9% to 446.47% depending on the level of dumping and subsidization to offset glyphosate imports below “normal value.”

The company’s June 30 filing automatically triggers an investigation and simultaneously triggered an uproar from major ag groups — including the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) and American Soybean Association — which had long supported the legal battle over glyphosate access that ended with a ruling in Bayer’s favor.

“What we are seeing is an increasing trend of companies abusing trade remedy laws to box out competition and corner more of the U.S. market, at great expense to their customers — the American farmer,” NCGA President Jed Bower said in reaction to the CVD petition. “These industries are already highly concentrated, and CVD actions further threaten the availability of inputs and keep prices inflated.”

In an “open letter” to producers, Ruveon acknowledged its status as the only domestic producer of glyphosate and claimed it was not raising the price of the herbicide based on filing the petitions.

“We recognize this filing raises questions about glyphosate and its potential impact on farmers,” Ruveon wrote.

“We want to reiterate that we did not make this decision quickly or easily. Our intent is not to adversely impact farmers but rather ensure that the U.S. remains a fair and competitive marketplace for everyone.”

Ruveon said Chinese glyphosate producers are engaging in predatory pricing practices as part of a “deliberate strategy to undercut domestic producers and ultimately force them from the market,” adding that it’s been well documented that suppliers from China benefit from government subsidies that allow them to sell at prices others can’t match.

“We’re not asking for your agreement regarding this decision, only that you understand our position: the petitions are about preserving long-term access to a critical input — and creating a level playing field on which we may compete to earn your business,” the company wrote.

“American agriculture has always been built on the principle that hard work and fair competition determine who succeeds. That is all we are asking for here.”

Read the original article on Michigan Farm News »