When the Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear Bayer’s appeal of a $611 million Roundup verdict this month, it sent a clear message:
Juries can hold corporations accountable when regulators fail. Three plaintiffs — Daniel Anderson, Jimmy Draeger, and Valorie Gunther — convinced a jury that years of using Roundup contributed to their diagnoses of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The case, first decided in 2023, stands as one of the largest ever upheld against Bayer.
But while U.S. courts are grappling with the evidence, here in New Zealand the situation is starkly different. Ordinary consumers can’t sue pesticide manufacturers for failure to warn. And when you walk into a hardware store anywhere in New Zealand, Roundup is sitting on the shelf with glossy labels promising convenience — not warnings about cancer.
So the question is: why are New Zealanders still being left in the dark?
From Missouri to Mitre 10: The Duty to Warn
The Missouri jury’s message was simple: Bayer had a duty to warn consumers about potential cancer risks. It didn’t, and people got sick. That duty — called “failure to warn” in legal language — is the basis for many Roundup verdicts in the United States.
But in New Zealand, there is no such pathway. Our legal system doesn’t give ordinary people the same leverage against multinational corporations. Which makes the absence of even basic warning labels all the more glaring.
We warn smokers on every pack of cigarettes. We warn drinkers about alcohol and pregnancy. We warn patients about side effects of medications, even when those risks are extremely rare. Yet glyphosate-based weedkillers, with tens of thousands of lawsuits attached to them globally, are sold without a whisper of risk at point of sale.
The Consumer Right to Know
At its heart, this isn’t about lawsuits. It’s about something simpler: the right to make an informed choice.
- Tobacco comes with graphic health warnings.
- Alcohol has clear pregnancy warnings.
- Medications are required to provide side effect lists, usage restrictions, and safety handouts.
- Even energy drinks disclose caffeine content and risk disclaimers.
Why should Roundup get a free pass?
If you buy a bottle at Bunnings or Mitre 10, you’ll see “safe if used as directed” — a phrase that regulators repeat but which courtrooms are increasingly rejecting. Where’s the mention of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma? Where’s the notice that other countries, including parts of Europe, have restricted or banned glyphosate? Where’s the transparency that would allow New Zealand families to decide for themselves?
Regulators vs. Reality
Bayer’s central defense in the U.S. is that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared glyphosate “not likely carcinogenic.” But multiple courts have ruled that EPA approval doesn’t erase a company’s duty to warn.
Here in New Zealand, the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Environmental Protection Authority lean on the same logic: because glyphosate has regulatory approval, it must be safe. But approval is not the same as informed consent. And informed consent starts with information.
MPI and the EPA don’t put themselves in the shoes of the weekend gardener, the school groundskeeper, or the farmer spraying pre-harvest wheat. They rely on abstract risk assessments instead of asking whether New Zealand families have a right to know about real-world risks.
Real Lives, Real Risks
These gaps aren’t abstract — they affect real New Zealand families. One of our readers shared how their son, newly employed on an Otago dairy farm, was instructed to spray gorse with a glyphosate-based herbicide. He was given no mask, no gloves, no protective gear at all.
When he asked the farm owner for protection, he was told none would be provided. Faced with an impossible choice — his health and his young family, or his job — he walked away after just a week. His wife was eight months pregnant at the time.
That decision may have cost them financially, but it likely saved them from much greater harm. The point is clear: if even basic safety equipment isn’t supplied, and if manufacturers won’t provide warnings, then New Zealand’s system is leaving families exposed.
What Warning Labels Could Look Like
If regulators wanted to act, they could start tomorrow with simple steps:
- Warning labels on bottles: similar to tobacco or alcohol, flagging cancer risk concerns.
- Shelf notices at point of sale: so customers see warnings before they buy.
- Safety handouts: provided at checkout, outlining safe handling and potential risks.
- Community education: especially in schools, where glyphosate is still widely used.
These are not radical ideas. They are standard consumer protections applied to other products that pose risks far less contested than glyphosate.
Where This Leaves Us
The Missouri verdict stands. Bayer’s liabilities are mounting. Yet New Zealanders still see no warning labels, no safety leaflets, no signs at point of sale.
That’s the real question: If cigarettes, alcohol, and even energy drinks carry warnings, why doesn’t Roundup?
Until our regulators step up, the burden falls on us to keep asking, keep challenging, and keep insisting that New Zealand families deserve the same right to know that juries in Missouri just upheld.
→ Sign Up for the Newsletter | Make a Donation
Resources & References
The debate over Roundup isn’t confined to one courtroom or one country. From Missouri to New Zealand, the same core issues keep surfacing: consumer safety, corporate accountability, and the right to be warned. The resources below provide further background on the verdicts, legal arguments, and regulatory failures shaping this global controversy.
Missouri Supreme Court won’t take up Bayer appeal of $611M Roundup verdict
Reuters October 3, 2025
Details the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision to let stand a $611M verdict against Bayer, one of the largest Roundup-related judgments to date.
Bayer’s Monsanto loses appeal of $611M Roundup verdict in Missouri
Reuters Updated May 29, 2025
A Reuters story covering the appellate court’s decision to uphold the $611M verdict. Helpful for background on how the appeal played out.
Judge slashes Bayer $1.56 billion Roundup verdict to $611 million
Reuters Updated April 6, 2024
Reports the trial judge’s decision to reduce the original $1.56B verdict to $611M, which is a key moment in this story.
Preempting Toxic Torts: Third Circuit Opens Split on Cancer Warnings in Schaffner v. Monsanto
Harvard Law Review blog
This legal analysis talks about the tension between federal regulation (FIFRA) and state failure-to-warn laws. Highly relevant to your “duty to warn / preemption” argument.
The Evolving Landscape of Federal Preemption in Failure-to-Warn Claims
SegalMcCambridge blog
A recent write-up about how U.S. courts are dealing with the issue of whether EPA pesticide approval blocks state-level requirements to warn.
Review of Litigation Against Monsanto Regarding the Safety of Glyphosate
Penn State AgLaw
An overview of key lawsuits against Monsanto/Bayer related to glyphosate, examining how courts have handled safety claims, failure-to-warn arguments, and the evolving legal strategies shaping Roundup litigation.
Glyphosate Legal Claims: Roundup Lawsuits and Cancer
RSD LAW
A page summarising many failure-to-warn claims and how they have been presented in court. Good for summarising the broader litigation context.
No single case or article can capture the full picture. But taken together, these resources highlight a consistent theme: when regulators don’t demand transparency, it falls to courts, communities, and campaigns like ours to keep the pressure on. The fight for informed choice — and the simple right to know — is far from over.
We’re grateful to the talented photographers and designers whose work enhances our content. The feature image on this page is by Wirestock with additional editing using canva.com.
