Another Settlement—But This Time, at the Finish Line
After four weeks of courtroom testimony, Bayer quietly settled yet another Roundup cancer case—this time in Missouri, just before the jury could deliver a verdict.
The plaintiffs, the Grantges family, alleged that years of Roundup exposure caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Their case included internal Monsanto documents suggesting the company knew more than it let on: ghostwritten studies, suppressed data, and internal strategies to “neutralize” inconvenient science.
And then—just before a public judgment could be delivered—Bayer called time. Another confidential settlement. No verdict. No precedent.
“They’re not just avoiding liability. They’re avoiding judgment—of both the legal and public kind.”
But this wasn’t just about dodging one more jury. Behind the scenes, Bayer is playing a far bigger hand—with the U.S. Supreme Court on standby.
The Supreme Court Gambit: Immunity by Design?
While settling this Missouri case, Bayer has also been pushing the U.S. Supreme Court to grant it something far more valuable than a legal win: immunity.
The company’s argument hinges on preemption—a legal theory that says federal pesticide laws (and EPA approvals) should override state-level lawsuits that claim a product like Roundup needed stronger warnings.
If the court agrees to hear the case—and rules in Bayer’s favor—it could shut down tens of thousands of pending lawsuits. The decision on whether to take up the case is expected at the Court’s June 26 conference.
This strategy doesn’t just protect Bayer. It would set a powerful precedent: that once a pesticide label is EPA-approved, states and individuals can no longer challenge it—even when new science emerges.
But Here in New Zealand, That Argument Doesn’t Apply
New Zealand is not bound by U.S. law. And preemption, as Bayer is pursuing it, has no direct legal relevance here.
What’s happening across the Pacific does not dictate our response—but it does offer a warning. Because while Bayer fights to shut down lawsuits in the U.S., glyphosate is still widely used in New Zealand—on parks, school fields, roadways, and crops.
The question for us is simple: Why are we waiting to act when the red flags are flying overseas?
Behind the Strategy: Settlements, Lobbyists, and Legal Shields
This isn’t a one-off legal tactic. It’s a pattern.
- Bayer has already spent more than US$10 billion settling glyphosate-related lawsuits.
- It still faces over 67,000 cases in the U.S. alone.
- It’s lobbying U.S. states to pass legislation shielding pesticide makers.
- And it’s reportedly exploring bankruptcy restructuring of Monsanto to contain liability.
Every one of these moves points to the same strategy: minimise exposure, avoid verdicts, and shut the door on accountability.
This isn’t about scientific consensus. It’s about legal containment.
The Science Isn’t Settled—But It Is Mounting
Adding to the pressure, a new study from the Ramazzini Institute has strengthened concerns about the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate-based herbicides—not just glyphosate alone.
That distinction matters. Most regulatory assessments, including those in New Zealand, look at glyphosate as a single chemical. But Roundup and similar products are chemical cocktails, often containing surfactants like POEA that increase toxicity and penetration.
These “inert” ingredients are rarely tested, poorly disclosed, and largely unregulated—yet they’re part of the real-world exposure people face.
So why are regulators still evaluating the active ingredient in isolation when we’re being exposed to the whole mix?
A Familiar Pattern—And a Missed Opportunity?
Bayer’s actions follow a well-worn corporate playbook:
- Avoid open court.
- Settle before precedent is set.
- Challenge the legal system itself when outcomes threaten profit.
This is exactly why New Zealand shouldn’t simply wait and watch. Because we’re not legally required to follow the EPA’s lead—and we still have the power to act.
If the courts are being closed, the court of public opinion becomes even more important.
Final Thought: Don’t Let Silence Set the Standard
Bayer’s latest settlement may not make global headlines. But it speaks volumes.
A company that is confident in the safety of its product does not spend billions to silence trials. It does not beg the courts to erase lawsuits before they’re heard. It does not settle case after case just before verdicts are due.
So what’s really being protected?
Not public health. Not environmental safety. Not transparency.
Just a product, a profit margin, and a playbook that hopes no one’s paying attention.
Related Articles
Settling to Silence: Why Bayer Prefers Deals
Bayer’s track record of confidential settlements raises questions about what they’re trying to hide.
Roundup Cancer Lawsuit: What the U.S. Verdict Means for New Zealand
What a major U.S. jury decision tells us about glyphosate’s legal future—and ours.
Shields Up: Why Are U.S. States Protecting Bayer from Roundup Lawsuits?
Some U.S. states are helping Bayer avoid accountability. Should New Zealand take notice?
The Flawed Study Claim: Bayer’s Default Response or a Legitimate Concern?
How Bayer discredits studies it doesn’t like—while promoting others it funds.
MPI’s Missing Data: Why We Can’t Trust the Glyphosate Reassurance
New Zealand’s own regulatory blind spots on glyphosate residue testing.
Image Source & Attribution
We’re grateful to the talented photographers and designers whose work enhances our content. The feature image on this page is by nattanan_sia@hotmail.com.
