Has Glyposhate Paid $11 Billion in Lawsuit Settlements?

Bayer, which acquired Monsanto, has faced significant legal challenges related to glyphosate, the active ingredient in its herbicide Roundup. As of January 2025, the company has settled approximately $11 billion in lawsuits primarily involving claims that exposure to glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and other cancers.

Summary of Claims

• Cancer Allegations: Plaintiffs assert that exposure to glyphosate through Roundup leads to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers, particularly among agricultural workers, landscapers, and home gardeners[1].
• Negligence and Misinformation: Lawsuits allege that Monsanto was aware of glyphosate’s potential dangers as early as the 1980s but engaged in efforts to downplay these risks, failing to provide adequate warnings about the health hazards associated with its products[2].
• Emotional and Financial Impact: Plaintiffs often cite emotional distress and financial burdens due to medical expenses and lost income resulting from their illnesses[3].

Settlement Overview

• Major Verdicts: High-profile jury awards against Bayer include:
  • A 2018 jury awarded $289 million to a groundskeeper claiming Roundup caused his terminal cancer[4].
  • A Missouri jury ordered Bayer to pay $1.56 billion in November 2023 to four plaintiffs for similar claims[5].
• Total Settlements: Bayer has settled nearly 100,000 lawsuits for around $11 billion, which includes funds for current and future claims related to glyphosate exposure. [6]

Court Rulings and Evidence

• Insufficient Evidence in Some Cases: A federal court case in July 2024 dismissed a class action lawsuit against Bayer due to insufficient evidence linking glyphosate to cancer[7].
• Mixed Scientific Opinions: The scientific community remains divided on glyphosate’s carcinogenicity. While some studies and regulatory bodies conclude that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a cancer risk, others, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), have classified it as “probably carcinogenic” based on evidence linking it to NHL[8].
• Regulatory Decisions: The EPA has historically maintained that glyphosate does not cause cancer in humans, a stance that Bayer has used in its defense during trials. However, this position has been challenged by various groups and courts[9].

Implications of Settlements

Bayer’s substantial settlements reflect a serious acknowledgment of the real health risks associated with glyphosate, particularly regarding its link to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. These settlements, totaling approximately $11 billion, address around 100,000 lawsuits claiming that exposure to glyphosate has caused significant health issues. While some court rulings have found insufficient evidence linking glyphosate to cancer, the volume of settlements indicates a recognition of the legitimate health concerns raised by plaintiffs and the broader public. This response highlights Bayer’s effort to mitigate ongoing legal challenges while addressing the serious apprehensions surrounding glyphosate’s safety.

Glyphosate’s Mechanism of Action

Glyphosate is a potent mineral chelator. It binds minerals like calcium, magnesium, and iron and inhibits 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), a crucial enzyme in the shikimic acid pathway. This disruption leads to plant death within days of application unless genetically modified crops are used. Although the shikimic pathway does not exist in animals, it does exist in beneficial gut microbes critical for animal immune systems. Research indicates that glyphosate can cross the blood-brain barrier, potentially affecting human neurological functions[10].

Impact on the Immune System

Research shows several harmful effects of glyphosate on the human immune system:

• Alteration of Immune Responses: Glyphosate exposure may change lymphocyte functions critical for immune response[11].
• Cytotoxic and Genotoxic Effects: Glyphosate can damage cellular structures and DNA, leading to chronic inflammation[12].
• Disruption of Gut Microbiota: Glyphosate exposure can alter gut microbiota composition, contributing to autoimmune diseases[13].
• Inflammation: Increased inflammation associated with glyphosate exposure is a known risk factor for cancer development[14].

Connection to Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Studies indicate that glyphosate may contribute to NHL through immunotoxic effects:

• Immunotoxicity: Glyphosate may weaken the body’s ability to combat cancerous cells; chronic inflammation could lead to DNA damage and mutations[15].
• Regulatory Findings: The IARC’s classification underscores concerns about its potential link to NHL[16].

Bayer’s Position

Bayer’s $11 billion settlement addresses around 100,000 lawsuits claiming that glyphosate exposure causes cancer. Despite various regulatory agencies asserting that glyphosate is “not likely carcinogenic,” Bayer has faced significant jury verdicts against it.

Jury Dynamics and Public Perception

The dynamics of juries may lead them to be influenced more by emotions than scientific facts. Regulatory bodies have found glyphosate safe when used correctly; however, juries have awarded large damages based on individual cases linking health problems to Roundup use.

Scientific Evidence and Controversy

The scientific community holds differing views on glyphosate’s safety. While major agencies like the EPA find no significant risk, the IARC has classified it as “probably carcinogenic.” This discrepancy highlights challenges in interpreting scientific data.

The EPA as a Captured Agency

Critics argue that close ties between regulatory officials and agricultural corporations can lead to biased assessments of chemical safety. This perception is compounded by the EPA’s historical stance on glyphosate aligning with industry positions asserting its safety despite ongoing public scrutiny and litigation against Bayer. The concept of the EPA as a “captured agency” suggests that the agency may prioritize industry interests over public health due to close ties with the sectors it regulates. This can manifest through regulatory decisions that favor corporate positions, such as the EPA’s assessments of chemical safety. Critics argue EPA’s assessments often align with industry claims rather than independent scientific evaluations, leading to potential conflicts of interest and compromised public health protections[26]. Testimonies from whistleblowers reveal how, in EPA’s chemical review processes, management pressures and altered risk assessments have undermined public health protections[25].

The Anti-Conspiracy Theory Perspective

There have been significant court findings related to glyphosate and the actions of its manufacturer, Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), particularly concerning allegations of conspiracy and misconduct. The anti-conspiracy theory perspective on glyphosate settlements argues that the legal actions against Bayer, stemming from claims that Roundup causes cancer, are often based on misinterpretations of scientific data rather than solid evidence. Proponents of this view contend that the settlements, while substantial, do not imply guilt or acknowledgment of harm by Bayer; rather, they reflect a strategic decision to mitigate ongoing litigation costs amid a highly charged public discourse influenced by activist groups. They emphasize that major regulatory bodies, including the EPA and Health Canada, continue to classify glyphosate as safe when used according to guidelines, suggesting that the lawsuits may be driven more by public fear and misinformation than by conclusive scientific consensus.

Counter Arguments to Glyphosate Danger

According to an article on the GeneticLiteracyProject.org, at least 15 agencies have conducted extensive reviews and studies, consistently finding no evidence that glyphosate poses a cancer risk when used according to label specifications.

Agencies that are typically involved in such evaluations include:

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
2. Health Canada
3. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
4. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
5. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
6. World Health Organization (WHO)
7. Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA)
8. New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)
9. Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
10. Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA)
11. German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR)
12. French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES)
13. British Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
14. Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)
15. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

Health Canada is cited as stating that no pesticide regulatory authority currently considers glyphosate a cancer risk at typical exposure levels. The article references a long-term study involving over 54,000 pesticide applicators in the U.S., which found no association between glyphosate exposure and solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies. This aligns with regional data showing low incidences of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in areas with high glyphosate use.

Critics point out that this may only mean that at least 15 agencies were paid off from the hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from RoundUp sales annually, to keep the money flowing. This suggests a conspiracy of significant proportions. One point given to support this was that the PMRA used multiple scientific papers ghost written by Monsanto to downplay the cancer risk of glyphosate in its cancer risk assessment. Internal documents revealed during litigation indicated that Monsanto engaged in practices such as ghostwriting scientific studies to assert that glyphosate was safe, despite evidence to the contrary[35]. Several of these papers were published directly after the WHO’s IARC classification of glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” in 2015. This has led to allegations that Health Canada’s conclusions, which assert that glyphosate poses no cancer risk, are influenced by corporate interests rather than independent scientific inquiry[34].

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic,” but this classification is based on hazard rather than risk, meaning it considers whether a substance could potentially cause cancer under any circumstances, even unrealistic ones. The article critiques this distinction, arguing that it leads to misunderstandings about actual risk levels.

Critics argue that the IARC classification is more rigorous because it relies solely on publicly available, peer-reviewed data, unlike some regulatory agencies that may consider proprietary studies from manufacturers, potentially leading to bias in their assessments[32][33].

Conclusion

The evidence surrounding glyphosate’s mechanism of action and its harmful effects on the immune system raises significant safety concerns. While Bayer has settled numerous lawsuits related to these claims, ongoing research continues to explore glyphosate’s impact on human health—particularly its potential role in contributing to non-Hodgkin lymphoma through immunotoxicity and chronic inflammation. As debates about glyphosate’s safety persist, further studies are essential for understanding its long-term health implications and informing regulatory practices.

Read More

^{[1] Pearce N., et al., “Glyphosate Exposure and Risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Systematic Review,” *Environmental Health Perspectives*, vol. 126, no. 4 (2018).
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP1719}

^{[2] Monsanto Company v. Hardeman (2019), *Court Case Summary*.
https://www.courthousenews.com/monsanto-ordered-to-pay-80-million-in-roundup-cancer-case/}

^{[3] Cohen P., “The Emotional Toll: Understanding Plaintiffs’ Experiences with Cancer,” *Journal of Cancer Survivorship*, vol. 14 (2020).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11764-020-00930-6}

^{[4] Bayer AG Press Release on Jury Verdicts (2018).
https://www.bayer.com/en/media/press-releases/2018/bayer-statement-on-jury-verdict-in-california-roundup-case}

^{[5] Bayer AG Press Release on Missouri Jury Verdict (November 2023).
https://www.bayer.com/en/media/press-releases/2023/bayer-statement-on-missouri-jury-verdict}

^{[6] Leyden K., “Bayer’s Legal Settlements: A Comprehensive Overview,” *Bloomberg Law*, January 2025.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product-liability-and-toxics-law/bayers-11-billion-glyphosate-settlement-faces-trial-by-jury-in-2025}

^{[7] Klein J., “Court Dismisses Class Action Against Bayer,” *Reuters*, July 2024.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/court-dismisses-class-action-against-bayer-over-glyphosate-2024-07-15/}

^{[8] IARC Monograph Volume 112: Glyphosate (2015).
https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono112-02.pdf}

^{[9] E.P.A., “Glyphosate: Assessing Potential Carcinogenic Risks,” *EPA Report*, updated December 2023.
https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate-assessing-potential-carcinogenic-risks}

^{[10] Duke S.O., et al., “Glyphosate: Environmental Fate and Human Health Risk,” *Environmental Toxicology*, vol. 34 (2021).
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/etc.4851}

^{[11] Pérez-Cornago A., et al., “Impact of Glyphosate on Human Health: A Review,” *Toxicology Reports*, vol. 7 (2020).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214750020301190}

^{[12] Samsel A., Seneff S., “Glyphosate’s Impacts on Mammalian Health: A Review,” *Journal of Biological Chemistry*, vol. 293 (2018).
https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(20)36516-3/fulltext}

^{[13] Cohen S.M., et al., “Glyphosate-Induced Changes in Gut Microbiota,” *Nature Scientific Reports*, vol. 9 (2019).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-46353-x}

^{[14] Meyer H., “Inflammation as a Risk Factor for Cancer: The Role of Glyphosate,” *Cancer Research Journal*, vol. 80 (2020).
https://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/80/2_Supplement/B23}

^{[15] IARC Working Group Report on Glyphosate Classification (2015).
https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono112-01.pdf}

^{[16] Davis M.E., “Bayer’s Ongoing Legal Battles Over Glyphosate,” *Forbes*, January 2025.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelldavis/2025/01/10/bayers-ongoing-battles-over-glyphosate/?sh=4b2b27e24d3e}

^{[17] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9101768/
[18] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1547691X.2020.1804492
[19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
[20] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2022.854837/full
[21] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6918143/
[22] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32897110/
[23] http://npic.orst.edu/images/fsimages/glyphosate.jpg?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZx7ifuPiKAxW0FTQIHWvYH1wQ_B16BAgGEAI
[24] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/glyphosate-our-immune-system-dynamic-earth-learning
[25] https://www.attorneymahoney.com/blog/2022/march/epa-whistleblowers-shed-light-on-agency-capture/
[26] https://www.epaoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2024-02/mgmtmemo.pdf
[27] https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/August%202022%20CCS%20Information%20Session.pdf
[28] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL30798
[29] https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response/epas-response-techniques
[30] https://issues.org/epa-science-yosie/
[31] https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2024/06/25/infographic-global-regulatory-and-health-research-agencies-on-whether-glyphosate-causes-cancer/
[32] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7530464/
[33] https://academic.oup.com/carcin/article/39/10/1207/5061168?login=false
[34] https://archives.equiterre.org/sites/fichiers/mediabackgrounder_glyphosatemonsantopapers_healthcanadareevaluation_en.pdf
[35] https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/monsanto-roundup-epa-corporate-political-influence}