Key takeaways:
- Bayer helped draft and lobby for state bills that would shield it from Roundup cancer claims if EPA-approved labels are followed.
- Glyphosate residues in bread, wheat flour, oats and cereals have turned a regulatory issue into a consumer trust problem.
- Food companies are under growing pressure to prove their grain supply chains can deliver “clean” and sustainable products.
Bayer has been stuck with Roundup ever since it bought Monsanto in 2018. That $63bn deal didn’t just give it a blockbuster herbicide. It handed the German giant a mess – one of the biggest product liability fights in US history.
The allegation hasn’t changed. Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, is accused of causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Nearly 100,000 plaintiffs have already settled for around $11bn. Another 61,000 cases are still active. And juries keep coming back with enormous awards – billions in damages, in some cases – even when appeals later trim them down.
Bayer is now trying a different play. It wants lawmakers to step in. Near-identical immunity bills have been introduced in at least 11 US states – legislation that Bayer not only backs but helped draft and lobby for. The measures would block cancer claims if a pesticide label lines up with EPA approvals. Bayer calls that common sense. Critics see a corporate escape hatch.
The courtroom drama spills over into the food aisle – because glyphosate in the wheat and oats that go into bread and breakfast cereals. And for an industry trying to convince shoppers its products are wholesome, sustainable and safe, a chemical legacy like this is poison for trust.
Clean label vs legal shield?
The immunity bills Bayer supports in states from Georgia and North Dakota to Florida and Wyoming would strip juries of the power to decide whether Roundup should have carried a cancer warning. If the EPA signed off on the label, that would end the matter. Case closed. Juries don’t get a say.
Bayer frames this as aligning law with science. Jessica Christiansen, Bayer Crop Science’s head of communications, has said in multiple interviews that if Bayer complies with EPA labeling requirements after a rigorous scientific review, “we’ve satisfied the duty for health and safety warning” But Melissa Vatterott of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment said that if Bayer wants to avoid lawsuits, “they should put a warning label on the product or change the ingredients so that it’s not harmful.”
The timing is no accident. Despite billions already paid, Bayer still faces tens of thousands of cases. In March, a Georgia jury awarded $2.1bn to one plaintiff, one of the largest verdicts yet. According to company filings, Bayer has had to add another $1.37bn to its reserves to cover future verdicts and settlements.
But for food producers, this isn’t just legal wrangling – it’s a test of whether the supply chain can credibly market ‘clean label’ and ‘sustainable’ products while residues of a disputed herbicide linger in core ingredients.
Roundup lawsuit at a glance
Settlements: Nearly 100,000 cases resolved, costing about $11bn.
Still pending: Roughly 61,000 cases in US courts.
Jury awards: $175m, $332m, $2.25bn and $2.1bn in recent trials.
Reserves: Bayer has set aside another $1.37bn for verdicts and settlements.
Legislative push: Near-identical immunity bills (drafted and lobbied for by Bayer) have been introduced in at least 11 states.
Trend: Juries awarded over $3bn in 2023-24, with no signs of softening.
Watchdog: The MAHA report warns glyphosate may pose risks to children.
Outlook: Bankruptcy talk lingers, and no global settlement has yet emerged.
The science split
The EPA’s stance hasn’t changed, claiming that glyphosate is ‘not likely’ to cause cancer when used as directed. That line has kept Roundup legal in the US, even as countries from Vietnam to France have moved to ban or restrict it.
But independent research keeps stacking up. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s cancer agency classified glyphosate as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’. A two-year study published in Environmental Health in June 2025 – led by the Ramazzini Institute – found rats developed cancers even at doses regulators considered safe. Even Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr’s Make America Healthy Again report flagged dietary exposure to glyphosate as a concern for children.
Bayer, however, insists these warnings are overblown and points to more than 700 studies, many of them commissioned by Monsanto, that found no link to cancer. But internal company emails revealed in court filings show Monsanto executives discussing ghost-writing favourble studies and working with EPA contacts to keep critical reviews at bay.
Glyphosate in food
Independent tests have found glyphosate in wheat flour, bread, oats and snack bars.
An Environmental Working Group study detected glyphosate in nearly every oat-based cereal and snack bar tested, often above its own safety benchmark for children.
These levels typically fall below EPA limits, highlighting a disconnect between official thresholds and consumer concerns.
Farmers often spray glyphosate on wheat and oats before harvest to dry crops, increasing residue risk.
Some ‘glyphosate-free’ labels are already emerging in the market. Kellogg is working with its grain suppliers to phase out glyphosate use on wheat and oats by 2025, and Thrive Market is asking its vendors to earn Glyphosate Residue-Free certification.
Certification schemes like Glyphosate Residue-Free (via The Detox Project) are gaining traction, particularly in natural and organic retail.
In the supply chain, Richardson International – Canada’s largest grain handler – announced in 2015 it would stop buying oats treated with glyphosate before harvest.
The court of public opinion
Courtrooms aren’t the only battleground. The grocery aisle is just as unforgiving. Consumers don’t want even a trace of weedkiller in their daily bread. Whether a residue is legal or not, the reputational damage is the same.
Some food makers are already pressing suppliers to cut back on glyphosate or pursuing glyphosate-free certification. Others are waiting. That’s risky. Once consumers start equating bread or cereal with chemical residues, the whole ‘sustainable’ promise starts to unravel.
Even Bayer seems to know the Roundup brand is finished. In August, it rolled out CropKey, a new herbicide with a different active ingredient, icafolin-methyl, pitched as safer and untainted by glyphosate’s legacy. Regulatory filings are already in with the US, EU, Brazil and Canada, with the first launch expected in Brazil by 2028.
Time to choose
Seven years after the first big verdict, Bayer is still settling, appealing and lobbying. The EPA is under orders to revisit glyphosate’s safety by 2026. New studies keep raising red flags. And juries keep punishing Monsanto’s past behavior with billion-dollar awards.
For food companies, the choice is clearer than Bayer makes it sound. In 2025, glyphosate is no longer just a farm input – it’s a sustainability flashpoint and a consumer trust issue. For the food industry, the real risk may not lie in the courtroom, but in the grocery aisle.
Studies:
Zhang L, Rana I, Shaffer RM, Taioli E, Sheppard L. Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis and supporting evidence. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 2019 Jul-Sep;781:186-206. doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2019.02.001. Epub 2019 Feb 10. PMID: 31342895; PMCID: PMC6706269.
Panzacchi S, Tibaldi E, De Angelis L, et al. Carcinogenic effects of long-term exposure from prenatal life to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides in Sprague-Dawley rats. Environ Health 24, 36 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-025-01187-2
Williams GM, Kroes R, Munro IC. Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 31, 2 (2000). ISSN 0273-2300. https://doi.org/10.1006/rtph.1999.1371
