Glyphosate

This issue tracker focuses on federal and state regulatory actions and litigation addressing glyphosate as well as its use and labeling. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive listing of regulatory actions, but the litigation covered is not exhaustive and focuses on selected issues receiving national attention. This issue tracker covers the period from 2015 to present.  

While the Center for Agricultural and Shale Law makes every effort to maintain and update the content furnished in this tracker, no warranty or other guarantee is made regarding the timeliness and accuracy of any information provided. If you spot incorrect or missing information, feel free to contact us. 

12.13.23 – The Center for Food Safety and several interest groups submitted a petition to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeking cancellation of all registrations of glyphosate. The petition cites EPA’s 2022 withdrawal of its glyphosate registration review decision after the vacatur issued by the U.S. Circuit Court for the Ninth Circuit and notes that the agency “has taken no further action.” The petition states, “The result is that today, glyphosate remains registered despite no demonstration by EPA that it can meet the required . . . safety standard for this herbicide’s currently approved uses.” The petition seeks, “[i]n the alternative,” that “EPA initiate special review to assess the human health impacts of glyphosate and its formulations, particularly from occupational uses, as well as their adverse environmental impacts and costs.”

11.30.23 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the final biological opinion (BiOp) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on Enlist One and Enlist Duo, with the latter containing glyphosate. The BiOp concludes that the use of these herbicides, “as specified in the approved product labels, are not likely to jeopardize any listed species or adversely modify their critical habitats.” The EPA plans to work with the registrant to implement the BiOp and expects label revisions to be approved in time to for the upcoming growing season. 

5.24.23 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a memorandum initiating a 60-day public comment period on a draft biological opinion (BiOp) prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The BiOp evaluates the potential impact of Enlist One and Enlist Duo–which contains glyphosate–herbicides on twenty-two (22) endangered or threatened species. Initial findings suggest that the products, as currently proposed, do not pose a threat to the survival of these species. The BiOp recommends the removal of restrictions of Enlist herbicides in several states, including Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. The comment period will close on July 24, 2023. 

9.23.22 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published an agency memorandum fully withdrawing its February 2020 Pesticide Registration Review: Interim Decision for Glyphosate (ID). Various components required for a complete registration review under FIFRA were not completed in 2020, thus the decision was designated as “interim.” Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), pesticide registrations must be reviewed every 15 years for a finding that the pesticide performs as intended “without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.” Immediately following EPA’s 2020 publication of the ID, multiple petitions requesting review of the ID were immediately filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which remained pending over the last two and a half years. EPA’s withdrawal of the interim decision now ends the Ninth Circuit litigation and does not impact the present EPA-approved glyphosate usages and label. EPA states, “Pesticide products containing glyphosate continue to remain on the market and be used according to the product label and are unaffected by this action.” Previously, in June 2022, the Ninth Circuit (1) vacated the human health assessment, (2) ordered that an endangered species act assessment was necessary for a FIFRA-compliant review decision, and (3) ordered the completion of a new ecological assessment (to substitute for one partially withdrawn by EPA) by October 1, 2022. On September 23, 2022, EPA conceded that it could not meet the October 1, 2022 deadline. EPA will now draft and issue a new and complete glyphosate final registration review decision in full compliance with FIFRA, which EPA expects to publish in 2026. 

6.30.22 – The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics, through an update to its National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), released compiled laboratory testing results and data from urine samples taken in 2013-2014 which found, among other things, that 87% of 650 children tested between the ages of 6-18 had detectable levels of glyphosate in their urine. In addition, of 2316 urine samples from persons between the ages of 6-60, 1885 (or > 81%) showed a detectable presence of glyphosate. The presence of glyphosate in food is the result of the herbicide being used as a pre-harvest drying agent, or desiccant, so crops like oats can be harvested sooner.

11.25.20 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced and released its draft Biological Evaluation (BE) for glyphosate, which evaluates risks to listed endangered and threatened species from approved label uses of the herbicide. According to EPA, glyphosate is used on approximately 298 million acres of farmland each year and “is likely to adversely affect a significant percent of endangered species and critical habitats.” EPA will next coordinate efforts with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to develop protection measures, such as use limitations and registration modifications, if it determines that glyphosate threatens the survival or habitat of a species. EPA is accepting comments on the draft BE until Jan. 26, 2020 at docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0585, after which EPA may finalize its evaluation. 

2.3.20 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published notice of availability of EPA’s interim registration review decision for glyphosate under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). According to EPA’s decision, glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Here is some important background:

• FIFRA requires that a federal pesticide registration be reviewed at least every 15 years to ensure the pesticide performs its intended function without “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment,” measured as “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment” or the existence of “a human dietary risk from residues;”
• The EPA registration review decision process for glyphosate has been on-going since 2009 at EPA docket no. EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361;
• It has included a draft human health and/or ecological risk assessment published on February 27, 2018, a proposed interim registration review decision published on May 6, 2019 and public comment until September 3, 2019, and the publication of the interim registration review decision, accompanied by EPA’s formal response to public comments and an epidemiological review of scientific literature linking glyphosate to occurrences of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma;
• The EPA notice states the “registration review case docket for glyphosate will remain open until all actions required in the interim decision have been completed;”
• Those required actions consist of an endangered species determination under the Endangered Species Act and the resolution of a 2018 petition filed with EPA by an environmental group and numerous food manufacturers and retailers to lower the glyphosate tolerance levels in oats from 30 ppm to 0.1 ppm and to require labeling that prohibits its preharvest use on oats.

8.8.19 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a News Release regarding the newly published guidance relating to California Proposition 65 and stated: “EPA will no longer approve product labels claiming glyphosate is known to cause cancer – a false claim that does not meet the labeling requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).”

8.7.19 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided guidance to registrants of glyphosate regarding California Proposition 65 following recent EPA’s determination that glyphosate is not carcinogenic as well as a recent federal court decision dated Feb. 26, 2018 enjoining California from enforcing warning language about glyphosate and its potential carcinogenicity on product labels.  The guidance states: “Given EPA’s determination that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” EPA considers the Proposition 65 warning language based on the chemical glyphosate to constitute a false and misleading statement. As such, pesticide products bearing the Proposition 65 warning statement due to the presence of glyphosate are misbranded pursuant to section(q)(1)(A) of FIFRA and as such do not meet the requirements of FIFRA.” And adds: “For any pesticide product that currently contains Proposition 65 warning language exclusively on the basis that it contains glyphosate, EPA requests the submission of draft amended labeling that removes such language within ninety (90) days of the date of this letter.”

5.6.19 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Availability of the agency’s proposed interim registration review decision for glyphosate.

4.30.19 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a news release confirming its position that the use of glyphosate is safe for the public and issued an interim decision approving registration of glyphosate for use. EPA stated: “… EPA continues to find that there are no risks to public health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label and that glyphosate is not a carcinogen. The agency’s scientific findings on human health risk are consistent with the conclusions of science reviews by many other countries and other federal agencies.”

USDC N.D. California, No. 3:16-md-2741

Cause of action: This case originated in October 2016 following the motion of Plaintiffs Giglio and Hardeman to centralize pretrial proceedings for their claims, along with twenty-one (21) separate pending actions at that time. Plaintiffs alleged Defense Monsanto Company negligently developed and designed their product Roundup® (“Roundup”) containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Additionally, Plaintiffs alleged Roundup products are dangerous to health and cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (“NHL”). 

Multidistrict Litigation Order: A multidistrict litigation transfer order was filed in October 2016. The Honorable Vince Chhabria, for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, presides over the trial proceedings.

MDL Status Overview:

• Total Cases Filed: 5,076 (as of May 1, 2025)
• Pending Actions in MDL: 4,432 (as of May 1, 2025)

MDL Wave Structure: The MDL has advanced through nine waves, each designed to manage and organize cases according to jurisdiction and other relevant factors. 

The court created this webpage to provide case updates in response to high interest in the case. 

Hardeman v. Monsanto Company, et al. [Case closed]
USDC N.D. California, No. 3:16-cv-525
Ninth Circuit, No. 19-16636
U.S. Supreme Court., No. 21-241

2.12.16 – Edwin Hardeman filed a complaint against Monsanto Company, alleging that the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate, is “defective” and “dangerous to human health.” He also claimed that Monsanto failed to warn consumers about Roundup’s dangers and that he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma due to glyphosate exposure, seeking damages for his injuries.

1.3.19 – The federal district court issued an order dividing the proceedings in three glyphosate cases (including the Hardeman case) into two parts: the first on causation only and the second on liability and damages (including punitive damages). The order stated, in part, “[a] significant portion of the plaintiffs’ case involves attacks on Monsanto for attempting to influence regulatory agencies and manipulate public opinion regarding glyphosate. These issues are relevant to punitive damages and some liability questions. But when it comes to whether glyphosate caused a plaintiff’s [non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma], these issues are mostly a distraction, and a significant one at that.”

3.19.19 – The jury returned a causation verdict in favor of Mr. Hardeman, determining that his exposure to Roundup products significantly contributed to the development of his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma; thus, allowing the trial to proceed on matters of liability and damages.

3.27.19 – The jury ruled in favor of Mr. Hardeman on both liability and damages, awarding him $5,267,634.10 in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages.

5.3.19 – The federal district court entered a judgment awarding $5,267,634.10 in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages to Mr. Hardeman, totaling $80,267,634.10 in damages.

5.31.19 – Monsanto Company filed motions for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial. Monsanto argued that Mr. Hardeman did not present any credible evidence of causation, and that his failure to warn and design defect claims were also “legally invalid and unsupported by evidence.” Monsanto requested, at the very least, a reduction in the damages awarded, arguing that the jury’s non-economic damages award was 25 times greater than the economic damages award, which is excessive and in violation of California law. Monsanto also argued that the punitive damages award, which is 15 times greater than the compensatory damages award, is “facially unconstitutional.” 

7.12.19 – The federal district court denied Monsanto’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the design defect claim, holding that the evidence showed that Roundup is defective under California law when sold without an appropriate warning.

7.15.19 – The federal district court granted in part and denied in part Monsanto’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on punitive damages, finding that the jury’s decision to award punitive damages was “reasonable,” but that the $75 million award was excessive and would be reduced to $20 million, for a total award of $25.26 million. The court also denied Monsanto’s request for a new trial on the compensatory damages award of $5 million, finding that it was supported by the evidence.

7.17.19 – The federal district court lowered the punitive damages award to $20 million. 

8.15.19 – Monsanto Company appealed the May 3, 2019, judgment, as amended by the July 17, 2019, judgment, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

12.13.19 – Appellant Bayer (formerly Monsanto Company) submitted a brief seeking a verdict reversal and judgment in their favor. Bayer argued that Hardeman’s state-law failure-to-warn claim is preempted by federal law, because the EPA has consistently approved Roundup’s sale without a cancer warning, and imposing a state-mandated cancer warning would conflict with federal regulations. Additionally, Bayer argued that the court erred in its determination of punitive damages.

8.21.20 – Appellee Edwin Hardeman submitted a reply brief, arguing that the jury’s initial award of $75 million in punitive damages should have stood, given the overwhelming evidence of Monsanto’s deception in hiding Roundup’s cancer risk. 

On March 29, 2021, Bayer issued a public statement saying that the federal preemption defenses in the Hardeman case are the” most significant federal questions” in the Roundup litigation. Bayer also said that its litigation strategy is to get the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the preemption issues by appealing an adverse outcome in the Hardeman case, if necessary.

5.14.21 – The Ninth Circuit Court upheld a $25.26 million jury verdict against Bayer, successor to Monsanto, and rejected Bayer’s argument that state products liability law is preempted by federal law.

6.7.21 – The Ninth Circuit Court issued a mandate to the U.S. District Court for Northern California. 

Bayer announced on July 29, 2021, that it will appeal the Ninth Circuit Court’s May 14, 2021, decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does not preempt a state court product liability claim for failure to warn and duty to disclose.

8.16.21 – Bayer filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to review the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the jury verdict in this case.

12.13.21 – The U.S. Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the government’s views to help the Court decide the case.

5.10.22 – Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar submitted an amicus curiae brief expressing the position of the U.S. government regarding Bayer’s request for Supreme Court certiorari. The brief supports denying the appeal and aligns with the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling, stating that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., does not preempt state-law tort claims for failure to warn, in this case, of alleged carcinogenic risks associated with glyphosate.

6.21.22 – The U.S. Supreme Court denied Bayer’s petition for a writ of certiorari filed in August 2021, to challenge the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling. As a result, the $25.26 million jury verdict awarded to Plaintiff Edwin Hardeman against Bayer is now finalized. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, Bayer issued a statement noting that future cases, including those related to Roundup, may present preemption questions similar to the Hardeman case, and could potentially create a circuit split.

Carson v. Monsanto Company [Case closed]
USDC S.D. Georgia, No. 4:17-cv-237
Eleventh Circuit, No. 21-10994

12.5.17 – John D. Carson filed a lawsuit against Monsanto Company, seeking damages and alleging that his health issues, particularly the onset of malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH), resulted from his prolonged exposure to Roundup products and its active ingredient, glyphosate, which he used for roughly three decades until the year 2016. Carson argued that Monsanto’s Roundup products were defectively designed, failed to include proper warnings about the potential risks linked to glyphosate exposure, and were negligently manufactured. Additionally, he claimed that the implied warranties were violated due to the alleged health repercussions from using the products. 

1.15.20 – Monsanto Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Monsanto’s main arguments are the plaintiffs’ state-law based product liability claims are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Monsanto relied on EPA determinations affirming that glyphosate is not carcinogenic to humans as evidence that no warning label is necessary.

12.21.20 – The federal district court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Monsanto’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court dismissed counts II (failure to warn) and IV (implied warranty of merchantability) against Monsanto as well as counts I (design defect) and III (negligence) as they pertain to labeling or packaging. 

3.26.21 – Plaintiff John Carson filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to challenge the district court’s dismissal of counts II and IV.

6.21.22 – Plaintiff John Carson submitted a brief in which he contends that the June 17, 2022, ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court in the NRDC v. U.S. EPA case, No. 20-70787, which mandates the EPA to reevaluate the potential harmful effects of Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate, has an adverse impact on Monsanto’s position.

7.12.22 – The Eleventh Circuit Court issued an opinion, holding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and its regulations concerning pesticide registration and labeling did not preempt the plaintiff-appellant’s state-based products liability tort claim. This claim relates to the plaintiff’s assertion that he was inadequately informed about the potential risk of developing health issues as a result of being exposed to or using Roundup products that contain glyphosate. The three-judge panel reversed the prior district court’s ruling. 

8.2.22 – Plaintiff-Appellant Carson filed a petition for rehearing en banc, seeking to challenge the three-judge panel’s decision that FIFRA did not preempt the plaintiff-appellant’s state-based product liability tort claim.  

9.29.22 – The Eleventh Circuit Court withheld issuance of the mandate in this appeal.  

10.28.22 – The Eleventh Circuit Court issued a revised opinion, vacating and withdrawing its prior decision dated July 12, 2022. The court’s position essentially remains the same: the federal requirements under FIFRA or actions taken by the EPA do not preempt the plaintiff-appellant’s state-law failure to warn claim. Consequently, the court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings.  

11.4.22 – Plaintiff-Appellant Carson filed a renewed petition for rehearing en banc, seeking clarification on the matter of “whether FIFRA preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim where EPA has exercised its statutory authority to determine that the warning in question would be false and is not required under FIFRA.” Appellant highlighted that the revised opinion mainly addresses surface-level revisions, neglecting the substantial inaccuracies in Monsanto’s petition.    

12.19.22 – The Eleventh Circuit Court granted plaintiff-appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc, vacating the previous opinion and judgment of this court.  

2.13.23 – Plaintiff-Appellant filed his opening brief. He argued that Monsanto’s focus on EPA’s determination that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer during its interim registration phase clashed with the Ninth Circuit’s decision to reject that notion. Additionally, Carson stated that FIFRA clearly states that registering a pesticide does not constitute a shield against mislabeling, and that a registered label could still be misbranded.  

3.15.23 – Defendant-Appellee Monsanto Company filed a brief, urging the court to uphold the district court’s judgment. Monsanto stated that FIFRA supersedes state labeling requirements that differ from its own. Monsanto also argued that FIFRA’s preemption provision holds “force of law” and “because EPA determinations define the scope of preemption as a matter of statutory construction, there is no need for separate legal analysis. Furthermore, Monsanto contended that Carson’s state-law-claim is “independently barred by impossibility preemption” because EPA consistently concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk, making it clear the agency would not approve any cancer-related warning.  

7.10.23 – The Eleventh Circuit Court issued an opinion remanding to the initial three-judge panel the question of whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of and labeling requirements for the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, which “otherwise lack[ ] the force of law,” preempts the plaintiff’s state law failure-to-warn claim. Upon rehearing the case en banc, the circuit court found that the plaintiff’s “force-of-law” analysis, which asks “whether it would have been impossible for the defendant to comply with the state-law duty without violating federal law,” should only be applied to implied preemption questions, not questions of express preemption, which, the court stated, should be determined by “the meaning of the express-preemption provision” of FIFRA. The court then returned to the panel whether the “force-of-law” analysis should be applied to FIFRA’s labeling requirements.  

7.11.23 – The Eleventh Circuit vacated the previously held mandate in this appeal.  

9.1.23 – Plaintiff-Appellant John D. Carson filed a supplemental brief, arguing that EPA’s approval of glyphosate-containing products “serve[s] only as prima facie evidence of compliance with the registration requirements of FIFRA,” and does not carry the force of law, as argued in the Ninth Circuit Court’s Hardeman case. Additionally, plaintiff-appellant pointed out that manufacturers must update labels as new information becomes available. This can be done by seeking EPA approval for significant changes or making minor adjustments while notifying the agency. Some manufacturers have added cancer-related warnings to their labels, a step that, according to plaintiff-appellant, could have prevented his injuries if Monsanto had done the same. Consequently, Plaintiff-appellant urged the court to overturn the district court’s judgment and reaffirm that Carson’s state-law claim is not preempted under FIFRA.  

9.1.23 – Defendant-Appellee Monsanto Company submitted a supplemental brief, arguing that EPA’s repeated approvals of Roundup labels, based on their assessments of cancer risks and determinations that no warning is necessary, should be regarded as requirements under FIFRA. As a result, states are prohibited from imposing additional requirements, including the requirement for a cancer warning.  

2.5.24 – The Eleventh Circuit Court issued an opinion, holding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) did not preempt Carson’s state law failure-to-warn claim. The court determined that Monsanto could have followed both state and federal labeling requirements for its herbicide glyphosate; however, it noted that “Monsanto did not request–and the agency did not consider, much less reject–a cancer warning at all.” As a result, Monsanto “cannot meet its burden to show that the Agency ‘informed [Monsanto] that [it] would not approve changing the . . . label to include that warning’,” and the court concluded that Monsanto cannot claim the “impossibility preemption” to avoid adding a cancer warning to its glyphosate products. Bayer released a statement after the court ruling, expressing disagreement, and that they will seek a Supreme Court decision on the issue of federal preemption.

9.23.24 – The federal district court dismissed the case with prejudice. 

David Schaffner, Jr. et al. v. Monsanto Corp. [Case closed]
USDC W.D. Pennsylvania, No. 2:19-cv-1270
3rd Circuit, No. 22-3075

10.3.19 – Monsanto filed a notice of removal to transfer a lawsuit originally filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Schaffner developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as a result of his exposure to Roundup products. 

9.30.22 – The parties jointly requested that the court enter judgment against Monsanto on Count II (Strict liability – Failure to warn) of the complaint in the amont of one dollar. This stipulation is part of a settlement agreement resolving the case. As part of the agreement, Monsanto reserves the right to appeal the MDL court’s February 25, 2022 order, which denied Monsanto’s motion for summary judgment on federal preemption grounds.

10.3.22 – The federal district court entered final judgment in favor of plaintiffs on Count II (Strict liability – Failure to warn) of the complaint. 

11.1.22 – Monsanto filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, challenging the final judgment entered by the federal district court. 

8.15.24 – The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a precedential opinion reversing the lower court’s judgment, which had been jointly stipulated by the parties for appeal. The court ruled that the state-law requirement to include a cancer warning label on the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup is preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The court clarified that FIFRA regulations require pesticide labels to match the label approved by the U.S EPA during the registration process. Since the EPA approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning after a detailed review of scientific evidence in its potential carcinogenicity, the state-law requirement to include such a warning creates additional obligations that are not consistent with FIFRA. This decision breaks from those of the Ninth and Eleven Circuit Courts, which held that similar state laws were not preempted by FIFRA. 

National Association of Wheat Growers, et al. v. Becerra, et al. [Case closed]
USDC E.D. California, No. 2:17-cv-2401
Ninth Circuit, No. 20-16758

11.15.17 – The National Association of Wheat Growers along with 12 food organizations filed a lawsuit against OEHHA Director Lauren Zeise, challenging California’s Proposition 65 mandating label warnings for products containing glyphosate.

• Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief (12.5.17)
• Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin enforcement of Proposition 65 glyphosate warning labels (12.6.17)

2.26.18 – The federal district court issued an order denying in part and granting in part Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. 

• Plaintiffs filed motion for summary judgment (9.25.19)
• Defendants filed cross-motion for summary judgment (12.11.19)

6.22.20 – The federal district court issued a Memorandum and Order permanently enjoining California’s Proposition 65 glyphosate cancer warning requirement. The Court stated that “every regulator of which [it] is aware, with the sole exception of the [International Agency for Research on Cancer], has found that glyphosate does not cause cancer or that there is insufficient evidence to show that it does.” It then reasoned that the warning requirement was thus “not purely factual and uncontroversial,” and was, in fact, “misleading” and found that the requirement was a First amendment violation.

8.11.20 – The federal district court ordered that Plaintiffs’ pending claims in their first amended complaint, consisting of Claim II and Claim III are dismissed without prejudice as moot. The court, however, specifies that it “grants leave to Plaintiffs to refile Claim II and Claim III in the event that, following appeal the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remands this matter to this court …”

• Defendant Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California filed a notice to appeal the U.S. District Court’s order and judgment to dismiss Claim II and Claim III as moot (9.9.20)
• Appellant Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, filed his opening brief (2.12.21)
• Appellees, including the National Association of Wheat Growers, filed an answering brief (5.12.21)
• Appellant Xavier Becerra filed a motion asking the court to hold the case in abeyance for 180 days pending completion of the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) July 20, 2021, rulemaking process. Appellant’s view is that “the proposed warning, if it is ultimately adopted in the rulemaking process, could materially alter the First Amendment analysis in this appeal, potentially rendering unnecessary this Court’s resolution of several issues raised in the parties’ briefs” (7.30.21)

8.4.21 – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the case pending the conclusion of OEHHA rulemaking process.

• Appellant Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, filed a supplemental brief for review to the Ninth Circuit Court. California argued that the district court’s ruling should be reversed for several reasons, including the fact that the new safe harbor warning related to glyphosate aligns with the language of the lower court, prevents any insinuation of a consensus opinion on glyphosate’s toxicity, protects businesses from legal actions, and provides consumers who might come into significant contact with glyphosate details regarding the categorization of glyphosate’s cancer risk (11.1.22)
• Appellees National Association of Wheat Growers et al. filed a supplemental brief for review, arguing that California’s Fifth warning is inconsistent with Proposition 65 and violates the First Amendment. Plaintiffs-Appellees asserted that the Fifth warning does not materially differ from its predecessors and thus should not alter the analysis applied by the district court. In the event of a remand, plaintiffs-appellees asked that the existing injunction remain effective until the district court issues a new judgment (11.1.22)

11.7.23 – The Ninth Circuit Court issued a ruling declaring California’s Proposition 65 carcinogen warning requirement for glyphosate unconstitutional and in violation of the First Amendment’s right to free speech. The court found that Proposition 65’s glyphosate warning requirement failed to meet the exceptions for compelled commercial speech under the First Amendment due to the “controversial” nature of the warning, arising from “a robust disagreement by reputable scientific sources” regarding the herbicide’s safety. The court explained that “considering the current vigorous debate surrounding the scientific validity of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity, forcing Plaintiffs to convey that message cannot be said to be an uncontroversial proposition.” The court also recognized that California had alternative, less burdensome ways to convey its message about glyphosate’s potential risks. As a result, the court concluded that the Proposition 65 warning, as applied to glyphosate, was unconstitutional.  

Jones, et al. v. Monsanto Co. [Case closed]
USDC W.D. Missouri, No. 4:19-cv-102

2.13.19 – Lisa Jones and two other plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Monsanto Co. challenging their labeling and advertising of their Weed & Grass killer products “with the false statement that Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, targets an enzyme that is not found “in people or pets.”

• The parties notified the court that they designated a private mediator to resolve the matter (6.24.19)
• Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting class certification and approval of the class action settlement, along with a supporting memorandum. Monsanto agreed to create a $39.55 million fund, allowing class members to claim 10% of the average retail price with either proof of purchase or a sworn statement of what they bought (3.23.20)

5.14.20 – The federal district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of their class action settlement.

10.19.20 – The federal district granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of their updated class action settlement. 

• Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of updated class action settlement (2.25.21)

5.13.21 – The federal district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to approve the $39.55 million class action settlement. The updated settlement provides that payments to the class members will be increased from 10% of the average retail price for each product to 50% of the average retail price for each product. 

5.27.21 – The federal district court dismissed the case.

Rawa v. Monsanto Co. [Case closed]
USDC E.D. Missouri, No. 4:17-cv-1252
Eighth Circuit, No. 18-2346

4.5.17 – Joshua Rawa filed a class action complaint against Monsanto Co., alleging that the company falsely advertised its Roundup® concentrates products as being able to spray more solution than truly capable.

12.6.17 – The federal district court preliminary approved a proposed class action settlement between the parties, including a $21.5 million non-reversionary common fund for plaintiffs as compensation.

• Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the class action settlement, along with a supporting memorandum (3.13.18)

5.25.18 – The federal district court granted final approval of $21.5 million class action settlement.

6.13.18 – Following final approval of the class settlement, the federal district court dismissed the case with prejudice as to all plaintiffs and class members. 

• Plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal the federal district court’s order dismissing the case (6.25.18)

8.20.19 – The Eight Circuit Court affirmed the federal district court’s order to dismiss the case. 

• Appellants filed a petition for en banc rehearing (9.17.19)
• The Eighth Circuit Court denied Appellants’ petition for panel rehearing (10.11.19)
• Plaintiffs filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice (1.30.20)

1.31.20 – The federal district court granted Plaintiffs’ stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice.

Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. U.S. EPA [Case closed]
Ninth Circuit, No. 20-70787

3.20.20 – Petitioners Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network North American filed a petition seeking review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) interim registration review decision issued on January 22, 2020.

4.29.20 – The Ninth Circuit Court consolidated the case with Rural Coalition, et al. v. US. EPA, No. 20-70801.

12.17.20 – Petitioners NRDC and Pesticide Action Network North America submitted their brief. Petitioners wrote that EPA’s decision approving the registration of glyphosate is “fatally flawed” for the four following reasons: (1) “EPA failed to consider major environmental and economic costs of glyphosate use;” (2) “EPA failed to provide any explanation as to how it weighed the purported benefits and risks of glyphosate use to determine that the benefits outweighed the risks;” (3) “EPA’s approval of glyphosate rests on the unsubstantiated assumption that paltry, untested, and unproven mitigation measures will, in fact, reduce the acknowledged risks of environmental harm;” and (4) “EPA’s scant response to public comments violates the agency’s regulations and basic principles of administrative law, both of which require EPA to respond to significant comments on its proposed decision.”

6.17.22 – The Ninth Circuit Court issued an opinion granting the petitions for review and reversed and remanded back to the U.S. EPA its January 22, 2020, Interim Registration Review Decision for glyphosate. While EPA’s Interim Registration Review found, among other things, that glyphosate does not pose “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment,” the court vacated the human health risk assessment as not sufficiently supported nor consistent with other EPA analysis on the casual relationship between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The court also found fatal flaws in the ecological assessment as well as ESA violations but did not vacate those two portions before remand. Therefore, the label use provisions contained in the 2020 Interim Registration Review Decision remain in effect. On remand, EPA is to re-perform the entire analysis and produce a Registration Review Decision consistent with the law and the contents of the court’s decision in due course, with one deadline of October 1, 2022, applicable to the ecological portion due to a statutory requirement.

Georgia | New York | North Dakota

Georgia

5.9.25 – Georgia Governor signed into law Senate Bill 144 limiting liability for pesticide manufacturers. Starting January 1, 2026, any pesticide label approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or consistent with its latest health risk assessment, will be considered sufficient under Georgia law for warning purposes. Manufacturers will not be held liable under state law for failing to provide additional health warnings, unless the EPA determines that the manufacturer knowingly withheld or misrepresented material safety information. 

New York

12.23.20 – New York Governor signed into law S6502A prohibiting the use of glyphosate on state property. 

North Dakota

4.24.25 – North Dakota Governor signed into law House Bill 1318 establishing that if a pesticide is properly registered and bears a label approved by the EPA—or one that reflects the EPA’s most recent human health assessment or carcinogenicity classification—that label satisfies all state requirements for health and safety warnings. Consequently, manufacturers cannot be held liable under state law for failing to provide warnings beyond those included on the EPA-approved label. 

California | Georgia | Massachusetts | Missouri | Pennsylvania

This section includes selected state litigation involving federal preemption claims. It is not intended to be comprehensive, as documentation for all state-level cases is not always publicly available. For additional information, Bayer maintains a webpage with updates on the outcomes of Roundup-related cases. 

California

• Johnson v. Monsanto 

In January 2016, Dewayne Johnson filed a lawsuit against Monsanto, alleging that his regular occupational use of Roundup products caused him to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma. On August 10, 2018, a San Francisco county jury awarded Mr. Johnson $289 million ($39 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages). In October 2018, the San Francisco County Superior Court reduced the total award to $78.5 million. Monsanto appealed the reduced verdict in April 2019. On July 20, 2020, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District affirmed the jury’s finding of liability, concluding that Monsanto’s product had caused Mr. Johnson’s cancer. However, the court further reduced the damages award as excessive, setting both compensatory and punitive damages at $10.25 million, for a total of $20.5 million. 

On August 31, 2020, Monsanto filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the California Court of Appeal’s decision affirming Monsanto’s liability. In its petition, Bayer argued, among other points, that the verdict “severely punishe[d] Monsanto for complying with federal law.” Specifically, Monsanto relied on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) position that labeling glyphosate-based products as carcinogenic would constitute misbranding under federal law, and argued that this federal determination preempts California’s product liability laws. The California Supreme Court declined to review the case. 

• Pilliod, et al. v. Monsanto

In June 2017, Alberta and Alva Pilliod filed a lawsuit against Monsanto alleging that decades of using Roundup on their property led to their diagnoses of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. On May 13, 2019, a jury in Alameda County Superior Court awarded the couple a total of $2.5 billion in damages ($55.2 million in compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive damages). The court later reduced the award to $87 million. Both parties appealed the reduced verdict. On August 9, 2021, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District issued an opinion affirming the $87 million jury verdict in favor of the Pilliods and rejecting Monsanto’s argument that federal law preempts their claims. 

In September 2021, Monsanto filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court seeking to overturn the appellate court’s decision affirming the $87 million verdict in favor of the Pilliods. The California Supreme Court declined to hear the case. In March 2022, Monsanto filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to reverse the judgment upheld by the California Court of Appeal and the denial by the state’s highest court. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition. As a result, the $87 million California state court jury verdict became final. 

• Stephens v. Monsanto Company

Ms. Donnetta Stephens filed a lawsuit against Monsanto in the Superior Court of California in Alameda County, alleging that she developed cancer after using Roundup products regularly for approximately 30 years. On July 19, 2021, the California Superior Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn claims. The Superior Court found that FIFRA preempts such state claims, as it prohibits states from imposing labeling requirements that are “in addition to or different from” those established under federal law (7 U.S.C. § 136v). The court referred to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) formal finding that glyphosate “poses no cancer risk to humans” and granted summary judgment in favor of Monsanto. The case remains pending for trial on other claims. On December 9, 2021, the jury found in favor of Monsanto, determining that Roundup was not the cause of the plaintiff’s cancer.  

• Jones v. Monsanto 

In January 2023, Bruce Jones filed a lawsuit against Monsanto, alleging that exposure to the company’s Roundup products caused him to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma. On December 23, 2023, the jury in the Superior Court of California, County of San Benito, ruled in favor of Monsanto and dismissed the case. 

• Dennis v. Monsanto 

In this case, the Superior Court of California in San Diego County entered a jury verdict in September 2023 awarding $332 million to the plaintiff ($7 million in compensatory damages and $325 million in punitive damages). 

• Clark v. Monsanto

Destiny Clark filed a lawsuit against Monsanto on behalf of her son, Ezra Clark, alleging that her regular use of Roundup products around their home caused Ezra to develop Burkitt’s lymphoma, a rare and aggressive cancer, at the age of four. Monsanto sought dismissal, arguing that the claims were barred by California law and preempted by federal law. Plaintiffs countered that neither defense applies and that summary judgment should be denied. In October 2021, the Los Angeles County jury ruled in favor of Monsanto, finding that Roundup was not a “substantial factor” in Ezra’s development of Burkitt’s lymphoma. 

Georgia

• Barnes v. Monsanto

On March 24, 2025, the Cobb County State Court in Georgia issued a judgment ordering Monsanto to pay $2.065 billion in damages after a jury found that the company’s glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide caused the plaintiff’s cancer. The judgment includes $65 million in compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive damages. In response, Monsanto expressed disagreement with the jury’s decision, asserting strong grounds for appeal to overturn the verdict. The company maintains that the failure-to-warn claims in this and other Roundup cases are preempted by federal law, referencing the Schaffner decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which resulted in a split among federal appellate courts. 

Massachusetts

• Cardillo v. Monsanto

On October 21, 2024, the Superior Court of Massachusetts in Essex County issued a memorandum and order granting summary judgment in favor of Bayer, ruling that the plaintiff’s state law failure-to-warn claim was preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The court found that FIFRA prohibits states from imposing labeling or packaging requirements that are “in addition to or different from those required under” FIFRA. The court cited the Third Circuit Court’s recent opinion, which also held that state-law failure-to-warn claims concerning pesticides are preempted by FIFRA. The court found that the Third Circuit Court’s reasoning “persuasive,” particularly its conclusion that “a state-law duty is preempted if relevant EPA regulations that give content to FIFRA’s misbranding standards would prohibit adding the warning that state law requires.” 

Missouri

• Shelton v. Monsanto 

Allan Shelton filed a complaint against Monsanto in June 2018, alleging that he suffered harm as a result of using Roundup products containing the active ingredient glyphosate. On June 10, 2022, the 16th Circuit Court of Jackson County entered a judgment in favor of Monsanto. 

• Alesi v. Monsanto 

Carl Alesi filed a complaint against Monsanto in March 2022, alleging that the company’s use of “unreasonably hazardous and defective” Roundup products—along with its gross negligence in their manufacture and sale—caused serious personal injuries and fatalities, including cases of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. On September 1, 2022, the jury found in favor of Monsanto, determining that Roundup was not the cause of the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. 

• Durnell v. Monsanto

On October 26, 2023, the Missouri 22nd Judicial Circuit Court in St. Louis issued a judgment awarding $1.25 million to the plaintiff. On February 11, 2025, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District upheld the jury’s verdict, affirming the $1.25 million award in compensatory damages. The plaintiff had argued that Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide caused his development of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. On April 4, 2025, Monsanto filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the court to decide whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims. 

• Anderson v. Monsanto

On November 17, 2023, a jury in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, found Monsanto liable for design defect, failure to warn, and negligence related to its Roundup products. The cases of three plaintiffs (Jimmy and Brenda Draeger, Valorie Gunther, and Daniel Anderson), each of whom had used Roundup for years and was later diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, were consolidated into a single trial. The jury returned three separate verdicts and awarded a total of $1.56 billion ($61.2 million in compensatory damages and $1.5 billion in punitive damages. On March 15, 2024, the total award was reduced to $611 million. Monsanto stated, [w]hile the court reduced the unconstitutionally excessive damage award, the company believes that the court did not apply the law correctly on damages and will be filing an appeal.” 

Pennsylvania

• Caranci, et al. v. Monsanto

In October 2023, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas issued a jury verdict awarding $175 million to the plaintiff ($25 million in compensatory damages and $150 million in punitive damages). On May 8, 2025, the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld the $175 million verdict and rejected all six of Monsanto’s appellate arguments, including its claim that FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims. The court found Pennsylvania’s warning requirements consistent with FIFRA, concluding that the state law is not preempted. 

• Young v. Monsanto

On September 12, 2024, the jury in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas ruled in favor of Monsanto. Monsanto stated that “[t]his verdict follows the favorable ruling from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Schaffner v. Monsanto, which unanimously held that the state-based failure-to-warn claims central to these cases are expressly preempted by the federal law; since the U.S. EPA has repeatedly concluded the product does not cause cancer and approved the product label without any such warning.” This brings Monsanto’s total to 14 wins in the last 20 Roundup-related trials. 

• Melissen v. Monsanto

On October 10, 2024, the jury in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas reached a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding a total of $78 million in total damages ($3 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages). Monsanto disagreed with the verdict and announced its intention to formally petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the case in 2025. 

• Womack v. Monsanto 

On November 15, 2024, a Philadelphia jury ruled in favor of Monsanto. Monsanto stated, “[t]he jury’s verdict in favor of the company marks the 15th favorable outcome in the last 22 trials and validates the company’s strategy of taking cases to trial based on strong scientific and regulatory evidence.” 

• McKivison v. Monsanto

John McKivison filed a lawsuit against Monsanto, alleging that years of exposure to Roundup products during yard work at his home caused him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. On January 26, 2024, a jury awarded him $2.25 billion ($250 million in compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive damages). The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas later reduced the total award to $400 million. Monsanto announced that it intends to appeal the verdict to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.