The Supreme Court will soon determine whether corporations get a free pass for poisoning the public
Mark Twain supposedly once said, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” Yet there is a big difference between a good story that tells the truth by bending it, and a lie that claims to be true.
This is the story of Roundup, the brand name of the herbicide containing the active ingredient glyphosate, introduced by Monsanto in 1974 and soon thereafter swept the world as the “safe”—“safer than table salt”—alternative to widely used weedkillers like Dicamba and 2,4-D.
On April 27, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Monsanto Company v. Durnell to decide whether federal law preempts legal claims people can bring against chemical companies, and whether states can set their own labeling standards for herbicides. (Environmental activists, congressional representatives and MAHA supporters from across the political spectrum have dubbed the case “People vs. Poison,” and plan to hold a rally outside the court on the day of the hearing.)
Bayer, the parent company that bought Monsanto in 2018, has faced over 100,000 lawsuits from tens of thousands of people who say they developed non-Hodgkins Lymphoma from exposure to Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides. Bayer has paid out more than $11 billion in settlements and jury verdicts, with another 61,000 cases pending. Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma is a blood cancer with a 10-year survival rate of 55%.
The Trump administration has sided with Bayer, arguing that for decades the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved hundreds of labels for Roundup and other glyphosate products without requiring a cancer warning and that federal legislation preempts any “failure-to-warn” claims against companies like Bayer.
Roundup is a non-selective herbicide, meaning it kills almost any growing plant it touches. When it was introduced in the 1970s, farmers saw it as an effective burn-down herbicide they could apply prior to planting. It assured an almost weed free field at the beginning of the growing season. Roundup could be used in non-agricultural situations as well, to kill weeds and grass growing in sidewalk and patio cracks, around buildings and more, but care was needed because, as noted, it was non-target and could kill whatever plant it touched.
While it killed growing weeds, buried weed seeds were not harmed, so a weed free field at planting time did not ensure a weed free field throughout the growing season. Weeds would continue to sprout and more herbicide applications would be needed during the growing season.
Then, in 1996, Monsanto released their big fix: genetically engineered (GE) soybeans resistant to Roundup. They followed by releasing GE versions of other commodity crops such as corn, cotton, sugar beet and canola. Over the top spraying of these GE crops would kill everything but the crop, and Roundup became one of the most widely used herbicides in the world. As a result, GE crops today dominate world commodity crop production.
Monsanto sold Roundup with the slogan “one spray is all you’ll ever need,” but in time, it became clear that some weeds were developing resistance to Roundup. Farmers were right back where they started, looking for herbicides that worked consistently.
More genetic modifications were made to commodity crops, making them resistant to other herbicides like Dicamba and 2,4-D, the herbicides Roundup was supposed to have replaced. These multiple GE or “stacked” crops could be sprayed with a cocktail of herbicides, hopefully ensuring weed free fields for the entire growing season.
Farmers are now using more herbicide, even on the GE crops, and costs for GE seed have risen much faster than non-GE seed. Of course, the motive was never to reduce the farmer’s production costs or reduce the use of agricultural herbicides, but rather to increase both—that’s where the profit is. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in the United States more 92% of corn and 96% soybeans are planted using GE varieties, with the majority engineered to resist glyphosate.
For farmers who haven’t jumped on the GE bandwagon, finding non-GE seed is often difficult. Even more onerous, some farmers have found it necessary to plant GE seed as a preventative measure because non-GE crops can be damaged by chemical drift from neighboring GE fields.
What about the safety of Roundup? In 2000 the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology published a study that deemed glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, was safe and not a human health risk. Since then, that study has been cited consistently as proof of Roundup’s safety. As of January 2025 it was the ninth most cited paper in the corpus of glyphosate research of 22,800 (it was listed in the top 0.1% of studies cited in glyphosate research.)
A 2017 lawsuit helped uncover internal emails from Monsanto that suggested its employees played a significant role in conceiving and writing the influential 2000 article. In December 2025 the journal withdrew the study noting “serious ethical concerns regarding the independence and accountability of the authors.” Oops.
Numerous other studies have shown that glyphosate causes multiple types of cancer and that the inert ingredients that are part of the patented Roundup formulation increase the toxicity of glyphosate. Further, the practice of using Roundup as a desiccant on small grain crops (oats, wheat and barley) prior to harvest, puts Roundup directly on grain that enters the human food chain. The nonprofit Food & Water Watch has found that in the counties where glyphosate is sprayed the most, rates of non-Hodgkin lymphoma tend to be significantly higher than the national average.
In its Supreme Court case requesting immunity from future lawsuits, Bayer seeks to make the EPA the sole authority to implement pesticide label warnings. Yet the EPA’s official stance mirrors much of the faulty science of the past. In March, the Center for Food Safety released a new analysis that found the EPA has consistently failed to put warnings on pesticides linked to cancer—even when the agency’s own risks assessments have determined a product’s ingredients are carcinogenic. Even today the EPA considers glyphosate “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”
For decades Roundup has been sold as an effective herbicide, one that was safe to humans and the environment and without it, “consequences would be dire.”
Companies like Bayer have to protect their product and their profit even if they have to tell a few lies to do so. They claim to produce safe products that help farmers thrive, yet independent research suggests that glyphosate is, in part, responsible the increases in the cancer rates in Iowa and other agricultural states where Roundup use is high. Bayer and the agribusiness industry may be thriving, but farmers are not, and in these times too few people seem to care that lies are accepted as truth.
Jim Goodman is a retired dairy farmer from Wonewoc, Wisconsin, and a board member of Family Farm Defenders.
Have thoughts or reactions to this or any other piece that you’d like to share? Send us a note with the Letter to the Editor form.
Want to republish this story? Check out our guide.
