Bayer Continues Its Fight for Legal Immunity Over Harm Caused by Pesticides

When German pharmaceutical company Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion, the deal was pitched as a bold step toward building a global agricultural powerhouse—one that would help farmers boost productivity and sustainability for the benefit of consumers and the planet. Bayer CEO Werner Baumann called it “a great day” for customers, especially farmers. But at the center of Monsanto’s portfolio was Roundup, the long-controversial herbicide powered by glyphosate, a chemical increasingly tied to cancer claims. 

Within two months of the merger’s close, Bayer was hit with a $289 million verdict in a California case brought by a school groundskeeper who said Roundup caused his cancer and that the product lacked adequate warnings. That loss opened the floodgates: Bayer soon faced more than 67,000 lawsuits and billions in potential liability, leaving it with two options—push Monsanto into Chapter 11, or fight to rewrite the rules on labeling so individuals harmed by these products could no longer hold the company accountable.

That fight moved into statehouses in 2024. Bayer introduced legislation in Iowa, Florida, Idaho, and Missouri aimed at shielding pesticide manufacturers from failure-to-warn claims by declaring EPA-approved labels legally sufficient. Idaho became the first battleground. That February, lawmakers introduced a bill that would have stripped farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, neighbors, and other exposed people of the ability to hold pesticide makers accountable for inadequate warnings. After passing through committee, this first bill failed on the Idaho Senate floor by just two votes. A second bill was quickly defeated. Then came a third version—introduced a month after the deadline for new bills—which again sought to block class-action claims over improper labeling. As Idaho Organization of Resource Councils (IORC) Executive Director Irene Ruiz put it, “If you’re a manufacturer, why aren’t you being more responsible with the product you sell?” Bill number three died.

In the 2025 Idaho legislative session, a bill was introduced that would have limited the ability of Idahoans to sue pesticide manufacturers for failure-to-warn claims if the product label had already been approved by the EPA or another government agency. Critics argued the measure would effectively immunize Bayer and other chemical companies from lawsuits tied to products like Roundup. Thanks to public outcry from advocates with IORC, ICL, and others, multiple attempts to move the bill failed—even with Bayer spending over $620,000 on advertising and communication.

By early 2026, Bayer’s position grew even more precarious. In January, a 2000 foundational study Monsanto had relied on for a quarter-century to defend Roundup was formally retracted. The paper, ghostwritten by Monsanto employees, had claimed glyphosate was safe and influenced regulatory decision-making for decades. At the same time, newly uncovered internal emails further weakened Monsanto’s long-standing defense that Roundup was not linked to cancer. One of the company’s core arguments had suddenly fallen apart. Then, in February, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides.” It declared glyphosate critical to national security, agriculture, and food supply resilience. The order prioritized expanded domestic production and drew support from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., triggering backlash from MAHA Moms and others who said it flatly contradicted promises to reduce chemical exposure.

The legal fight soon reached the Supreme Court. In late April, the justices heard Durnell v. Monsanto, a case brought by a landscaper who said he developed Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of using Roundup that lacked adequate warnings. The case asks who gets to decide what warnings belong on the label: the federal government or the states. Monsanto argued for one national labeling standard. Its opponents argued that states must retain the power to act, especially when new science emerges faster than federal regulators respond. The justices appeared split.

Finally, in April, the U.S. House took up the 2026 Farm Bill (H.R. 7567), formally titled the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. The bill included provisions that would have weakened pesticide protections, including a controversial liability shield for manufacturers. But at the last minute, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) introduced an amendment to strip that shield from the bill. In a bipartisan 280–142 vote, the House approved the amendment. It rejected sweeping immunity for companies tied to illnesses linked to their products. The U.S. Senate is expected to take up the Farm Bill in June where lawmakers must decide whether to protect public health or give pesticide manufacturers a free pass nationwide. 

After three years of attempts from Bayer to pass state legislation in 10 states protecting itself from lawsuits, currently only three states have added a law to their books: North Dakota, Georgia, and Kentucky. These state bills are specifically designed to limit consumers’ ability to sue the manufacturer. Rather, they establish that a federally registered EPA-approved pesticide label provides adequate "sufficient warning" under state "duty-to-warn" laws. This effectively shields manufacturers from certain state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits. For this reason, ICL will continue to fight. And right now—you have a chance to help us push back.

The 2026 Farm Bill (Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, H.R. 7567) slashes protections from pesticides. Right now, it faces a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, where we are asking members of Congress to reject it.

Tell your U.S. Representative to reject the Farm Bill and vote to extend the current law to protect public health and the environment. URGENT action is needed to help protect the health of Idahoans. Tell Congress: Protect state and local pesticide laws. Don’t wait—take action today!