On June 7, 2018, German pharmaceutical giant Bayer completed its $63 billion acquisition of St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. The deal promised to create an agricultural powerhouse by combining Monsanto’s vast seed genetic base with Bayer’s strong portfolio of crop protection products.
But that dream lasted exactly two months.
On Aug. 10, 2018, a California jury delivered a verdict that would haunt Bayer. The court found Monsanto liable in a lawsuit filed by a man who alleged the company’s Roundup-branded, glyphosate-based herbicides caused his cancer. The jury ordered the company to pay $289 million in damages.
Since Bayer had completed its acquisition of Monsanto just two months earlier, Bayer inherited full legal responsibility for the verdict and all future Roundup litigation. Crucially, the verdict was based on state “failure to warn” laws that allow plaintiffs to claim inadequate labeling, even though EPA considers glyphosate safe and has repeatedly stated that cancer warnings are not scientifically warranted and cannot be added to product labels without federal approval.
Just like that, Bayer’s honeymoon phase was over, as that case opened a judicial Pandora’s box that has engulfed the company in litigation ever since. To date, over 181,000 individual glyphosate-related lawsuits have been filed against Bayer. More than 100,000 have been litigated, resulting in over $11 billion in settlements paid.
There have been not-so-subtle hints from Bayer that something has to change. The best-case scenario would be a positive Supreme Court ruling that ends the legal onslaught. Worst case? Bayer cuts bait and stops manufacturing and selling Roundup altogether. It has indicated such dramatic action could be necessary and could happen before the 2026 crop year begins.
Chinese Monopoly Looms
A complete Bayer exit from the glyphosate market would have ripple effects throughout agriculture and beyond. Currently, Bayer sells about 35% to 40% of the glyphosate products sold in the U.S. Generic products from China make up the bulk of the remaining sales, with India responsible for the rest.
If Bayer were to cease Roundup sales, China would achieve a worldwide monopoly on glyphosate production and sales by default. Overnight, China could slap exorbitant tariffs on glyphosate, and U.S. farmers would see input prices skyrocket. Worst case scenario: China declares an embargo on all glyphosate shipments to the U.S.
Victim of Its Own Success
One could argue Roundup ended up being too successful as both a product and a brand.
When Monsanto introduced glyphosate in 1974, no one predicted it would revolutionize agriculture. Deemed “safer” than residual herbicides like atrazine, Roundup largely enabled the no-till movement.
But the zenith moment in Roundup’s product history came in 1996 when the first Roundup-Ready soybean genetics rolled out. Ultimately, Monsanto brought to market Roundup-Ready genetics for six different crop species.
Linking specific genetic resistance to your flagship herbicide was revolutionary from the science side but was true genius in marketing. That is why, in the U.S., glyphosate accounts for 60% to 70% of all agricultural herbicide use. It’s the most used herbicide on the planet.
Roundup’s very success created new problems. Prolific use led to shifts in weed species. Farmers no longer battled cocklebur or velvetleaf. Instead, glyphosate-resistant weeds such as pigweed and out-of-control henbit became the new nemeses for farmers.
The Perfect Storm
The legal challenges have been compounded by cultural and political factors. The “Make America Healthy Again” movement has singled out glyphosate, echoing themes from the 1962 book “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson. This literary piece is widely credited with launching the modern environmental movement.
With “MAHA Moms” and high-profile figures amplifying concerns about glyphosate’s safety, a perfect storm of public opinion has emerged that has made jury verdicts even more favorable to plaintiffs.
Trading One Problem for a Bigger One
The situation serves as a cautionary tale: Be careful what you wish for. The potential consequences of losing glyphosate could force U.S. agriculture to revert to practices reminiscent of the 1970s, dusting off old agronomic playbooks and rediscovering chemical combinations many farmers have never used.
Without glyphosate, weed management would be more complex, costly and tillage-dependent. Farmers would likely use more of older chemistries like atrazine, 2,4-D, and dicamba, which pose their own environmental challenges. Pressure for new solutions — biotech traits, precision technology and non-
chemical tools — would intensify.
Yet this litigation reduces incentive for newer and better alternatives. It takes 10 to 15 years to bring a crop protection product to market, and the current legal environment discourages innovation.
We need to think outside the box, using technologies like AI and robotics to reduce herbicide use and rates while improving effectiveness. But here’s the fundamental problem: the future of American agriculture should not be determined by trial lawyers chasing billion-dollar paydays. These legal campaigns don’t make farming safer; they’re driving us backward toward older, less effective chemistries that pose their own environmental risks.
We need innovation, not litigation. The era of Roundup might be in its twilight, but U.S. agricultural innovation should not be chased off into the sunset by overzealous groups of individuals who prefer not to get mud on their boots.
Steve Cubbage is a precision ag consultant and farmer from Nevada, Mo. He is the founder of Longitude 94, an agriculture sustainability and technology consulting business. Read more from him here.
