Is Bayer’s legal strategy really about justice, or is it about silencing dissent?
When Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018, it also inherited a massive legal headache: thousands of lawsuits alleging that Roundup®, Monsanto’s flagship glyphosate-based herbicide, caused cancer. Since then, Bayer has been on a relentless quest to put the issue to rest — not by proving the product’s safety, but by settling cases out of court.
For a deeper look at why Bayer continues to settle Roundup lawsuits despite claiming safety, check out our previous article: Why Bayer Keeps Settling Roundup Lawsuits.
The Wave of Lawsuits
After the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015, lawsuits against Monsanto started to snowball. Plaintiffs claimed that exposure to Roundup® caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto had failed to warn users of the risk.
In the years since, Bayer has faced tens of thousands of cases, with some juries awarding multi-million-dollar payouts to cancer victims. Rather than risk more costly trials, Bayer opted to settle the bulk of these cases while explicitly denying any wrongdoing.
But what does this pattern of settling really mean?
Settlements Without Admission: The Silence Tactic?
In 2020, Bayer agreed to pay up to $10.9 billion to resolve around 125,000 U.S. lawsuits. While that sounds like a massive concession, it’s crucial to note that the settlement explicitly stated that Bayer did not admit liability or wrongdoing.
From a legal perspective, this makes sense: admitting liability would open the door to even more lawsuits. But from a public health perspective, it’s troubling. Are we seeing accountability — or just damage control?
What Settlements Achieve for Bayer:
- Avoiding Admission of Guilt: By settling, Bayer doesn’t have to concede that glyphosate causes cancer.
- Minimizing Financial Risk: Jury trials can result in unpredictable, enormous payouts. Settlements cap that risk.
- Controlling the Narrative: Settling quietly keeps the spotlight off the evidence, allowing Bayer to maintain the stance that glyphosate is safe when used correctly.
But does this strategy really serve the public interest? Or does it just bury the problem?
Silencing the Evidence?
One of the biggest issues with settling is that it often includes non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). These agreements prevent plaintiffs from discussing their cases or the evidence that was presented. In other words, the public never gets a clear picture of what really happened or how the court weighed the evidence.
This approach doesn’t just protect Bayer’s finances — it also protects its reputation. If each case went to trial, the public might see a pattern of harm that settlements conveniently obscure.
The Monsanto Papers
Some of the most damning evidence about glyphosate’s potential harm came to light during early trials, when internal documents revealed that Monsanto had:
- Ghostwritten studies to bolster glyphosate’s safety profile.
- Colluded with regulatory agencies to influence safety assessments.
- Actively discredited scientists who raised concerns.
If Bayer keeps settling out of court, will we ever see the full scope of internal communications and safety data?
Why Not Fight in Court?
One could argue that if Bayer truly believed in glyphosate’s safety, it would be better off fighting each case on its merits. Winning in court could set a powerful precedent that Roundup® is not responsible for the alleged harm.
Instead, Bayer seems intent on minimizing courtroom exposure. The risk of losing — and having damning evidence made public — may outweigh the financial cost of settling.
Is this the behavior of a company confident in its product’s safety, or one trying to contain a reputational crisis?
Global Implications
Bayer’s legal troubles aren’t confined to the U.S. In Australia, Europe, and South America, legal actions are mounting. Some countries, like France and Germany, have already moved to restrict glyphosate use, partly due to public pressure and emerging legal risks.
But in countries like New Zealand, where Roundup® is still widely available and used, the legal narrative remains muted. Are we too complacent, assuming that if it were truly harmful, global giants like Bayer wouldn’t continue selling it?
Final Thought
Bayer’s legal strategy seems less about justice and more about managing the fallout. By settling, they control the story, minimize financial risk, and — most importantly — keep the public in the dark about the true scale of the problem.
Are we allowing corporations to quietly buy their way out of accountability? If glyphosate’s safety is as solid as Bayer claims, why not let the courts decide?
Resources and References
If you’re ready to question corporate strategies and dig into the details, here’s a collection of resources that shed light on Bayer’s legal maneuvers and the ongoing battles over glyphosate. Explore the evidence and see what’s really at stake.
Bayer to Pay Up to $10.9 Billion to Settle Bulk of Roundup Weedkiller Cancer Lawsuits
This Reuters article details Bayer’s agreement to pay up to $10.9 billion to settle approximately 100,000 U.S. lawsuits alleging that Roundup causes cancer.
Read the article on Reuters
The “Monsanto Papers” and the Nature of Ghostwriting and Related Practices
An analysis on PubMed examining Monsanto’s involvement in ghostwriting scientific articles to defend glyphosate’s safety, highlighting concerns about scientific integrity.
Read the study on PubMed
Bayer’s Effort to Block Roundup Lawsuits Kicks Into High Gear
Investigate Midwest reports on Bayer’s intensified lobbying efforts to enact legislation that would shield the company from further Roundup-related lawsuits.
Read the full report on Investigate Midwest
Bayer Announces Agreements to Resolve Major Legacy Monsanto Litigation
Bayer’s official statement outlining their strategy to manage and resolve litigation inherited from Monsanto, including the Roundup cases.
View Bayer’s official statement. [PDF]
Bayer to Pay Up to $10.9 Billion to Settle Cancer Claims Over Roundup
Forbes provides an overview of Bayer’s settlement, discussing the financial and legal implications of resolving the Roundup lawsuits.
Read the article on Forbes
The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the Scientific Well
A PubMed article discussing how Monsanto’s practices, including ghostwriting and influencing regulatory assessments, have impacted scientific research on glyphosate.
Read the study on PubMed
These resources offer a comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding Bayer’s legal maneuvers and the ongoing debates about glyphosate’s safety. They provide context and evidence for the discussions presented in the article.
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 armmypicca. You can find more of their work here: https://www.123rf.com/profile_armmypicca.
