Kentucky lawmakers overrode Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s push for a new law that protects Bayer, the global pesticide maker, from a state lawsuit for failing to warn customers that a commonly used herbicide can cause cancer.
Wednesday’s veto override decision by Kentucky’s Republican-led General Assembly comes just weeks before a hearing is scheduled in the U.S. Supreme Court. arguments in case That would create a national shield against such liability lawsuits. This also comes as Bayer is seeking approval from a Missouri court. $7.25 billion settlement This could resolve tens of thousands of claims that Roundup herbicide caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
The multifaceted lawsuits in state capitols and courtrooms highlight looming financial problems for the German-based company, which is also known for its pharmaceutical products. I also run into problems that have become clear. viewpoints are divided between supporters of President Donald Trump and the Make America Healthy Again movement.
Here’s what you need to know about the law and litigation involving Bayer.
Popular herbicide becomes popular legal target
Monsanto debuted Roundup herbicide in 1974, using the chemical glyphosate as the active ingredient. This product quickly became one of the most widely used herbicides in agriculture. Roundup is designed to be used with genetically engineered seeds that can withstand the deadly effects of herbicides, allowing farmers to produce more while protecting their soil with less tillage.
Added by Bayer Portfolio summary When it acquired Missouri-based Monsanto in 2018, it came with a growing number of lawsuits alleging that glyphosate causes a cancer known as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Approximately 200,000 Roundup-related claims Currently it is being done against Bayer.
The company disputes the carcinogenicity claims. But Bayer said legal costs threaten its ability to continue selling glyphosate-based products in U.S. agricultural markets. The company has already removed glyphosate from a new version of Roundup aimed at the residential market.
Although some studies link glyphosate to cancer, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says it is unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed. Roundup’s federally approved label does not include any cancer warnings.
State law aims to deter lawsuits for failure to warn
Most lawsuits center on allegations that Roundup’s manufacturers failed to warn customers about potential cancer risks.
Bayer has partnered with a coalition of agricultural organizations called the Modern Ag Alliance to prevent similar claims in the future. they supported Multi-state invoices Declares that federally approved pesticide labels are sufficient to satisfy customer warning obligations under state law.
North Dakota and Georgia became the first states to enact legal shields last year. Kentucky came in third after lawmakers voted to override Beshear’s veto.
“Farmers need clear and consistent rules to help them plan for the future and keep their businesses profitable,” said Elizabeth Burns Thompson, executive director of the Modern Ag Alliance, praising Kentucky’s law.
Beshear, a former state attorney general, noted that many other items already have warning labels, including cosmetics, personal hygiene products and household cleaners.
But Kentucky’s action would “allow dangerous pesticides to be sold without labels warning of the risks of their use, which is antithetical to a healthy America,” Beshear said in his veto message.
High interest in Supreme Court precedents
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on April 27th. Missouri incident In this case, a jury awarded a $1.25 million verdict to a man who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after spraying Roundup in a St. Louis community garden. Jurors found Monsanto liable for failing to warn of the risks.
Bayer argues that federal pesticide laws preempt claims for failure to warn under state laws because states cannot mandate additional labeling.
The Trump administration is siding with Bayer, reversing the position taken by former President Joe Biden’s administration and at odds with some of Bayer’s supporters. Agenda to Make America Healthy Again They oppose giving companies legal immunity from such claims.
This incident attracted a lot of attention. Agricultural groups, business groups, medical groups, plaintiffs’ lawyers and state elected officials jointly filed about 30 separate legal briefs asking the high court to rule on Bayer’s claims for federal protection.
Among them is a group of former EPA officials who argue that state lawsuits should be allowed. Because the makers of Roundup never proposed to the EPA to include a cancer warning on the label, the court filing said, the lack of such a label “cannot be understood as an implicit rejection of such a warning” and should not preempt litigation for failure to warn.
Settlement could resolve thousands of lawsuits
Last month, a St. Louis Circuit Court judge granted preliminary approval to a settlement that aims to resolve most of the pending and future failure to warn cases involving Roundup. This began a notice period in which people could choose to opt out of the settlement by June 4.
The proposed agreement calls for Bayer to pay up to $7.25 billion annually into a special fund for up to 21 years. The amount an individual will receive depends on how they use Roundup, their age at diagnosis, and the severity of their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
According to the proposed settlement, agricultural, industrial and turf workers exposed to Roundup for long periods of time and diagnosed with a progressive disease before age 60 will receive an average of $165,000. People diagnosed at age 78 and older will receive an average of $10,000.
The settlement eliminates some of the risk of an eventual Supreme Court ruling. Even if the Supreme Court rules in Bayer’s favor, patients will be guaranteed to receive their settlement money. And if the high court rules against it, Bayer will be protected from potentially greater costs.
