(by Christina Stucker-Gassi)
2026 is shaping up to be a landmark year for the controversy surrounding glyphosate, the world's most used herbicide. Notorious for its inclusion in Roundup, and industry-refuted links to cancer, this policy update reviews the main ongoing political and legal battles surrounding this darling of the GMO “Gene Revolution”. I’ll start off by reflecting on the story of a farmer friend who recently settled his case against Bayer/Monsanto out of court. Then I will recap the long awaited retraction of the key study from 2000 that claimed glyphosate was safe. I will also look at why glyphosate reliance may hinder the new USDA regenerative pilot announced in early December 2025. All of this while balancing my hope for alternatives with an honest look at just how reliant we currently are on glyphosate.
Additionally, I will review the current events surrounding states’ rights to label glyphosate a carcinogen, where we could also see the Supreme Court weighing in on this year. Continued efforts by some states to label, and mounting legal settlements finding Bayer/Monsanto liable for damages, has resulted in a new industry strategy at state legislatures across the country. This state level push would remove the failure to warn liability from glyphosate manufacturers because the EPA label doesn’t currently include a cancer warning. This liability give-away is also being lobbied for in Congress too. Read on to get the full scoop.
My Friend Sued Monsanto
My friend Roger’s family has been farming in Idaho for more than 100 years. We first connected over his deep interest in transitioning his family’s row crop operation to organic and regenerative practices. No small task given their current sugar beet heavy rotation. He kept every receipt from a lifetime of pesticide purchases and maintained meticulous records as a farm manager. When he developed Non Hodgkin's lymphoma, he believed the facts would speak for themselves in court.
Instead, he found himself in a losing battle which led him to the conclusion that the system was never designed for someone like him to win. He spent $50,000 on legal fees only to be buried in paperwork by Bayer’s legal team which had seemingly infinite resources. The emotional toll was just as heavy as the financial one. Before they even got to depositions, his own lawyer looked him in the eye and laid out the seemingly impossible reality of convincing a jury of his peers in Twin Falls Idaho that Monsanto/Bayer is responsible.
Corporate influence and misinformation has been building for decades, resulting in the sense of safety many feel using glyphosate. Today, while Roger undergoes aggressive CAR T-cell therapy for recurring cancer, he is watching the very company that successfully denied his claims ask for even more legal protection.
Bayers Case for Immunity from 60,000+ US Lawsuits
That system that left Roger questioning his own legal case has long relied on a specific body of science that has been recently officially discredited. In early December 2025, the journal ‘Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology’ retracted the seminal 2000 study that served as the primary defense for glyphosate for 25 years. I’m scratching my head wondering why it took so long to be retracted, seeing that it became public knowledge that it was ghostwritten by Monsanto/Bayer in 2017. The truth about that study tipped the balance in Johnson v. Monsanto in which a California school groundskeeper won his case in 2018. This was the first case to successfully use the "Monsanto Papers" to secure a major verdict, setting the legal precedent for thousands of subsequent cases. Given his position in the current Presidential Administration, it’s interesting how RFK Jr. served as trial counsel on that first case and still receives contingency fees from successful cases against Bayer/Monsanto.
Thank goodness this old news about the study is again highlighting a massive credibility gap for the EPA. As a reminder, the EPA is currently under a court supervised mandate to reevaluate glyphosate's cancer risk. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the EPA to reevaluate glyphosate's cancer risk on June 17, 2022, ruling the agency's prior conclusion (that it's "not likely" to cause cancer) was flawed and inconsistent with its own guidelines. The study that was retracted is titled, "Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans” and was cited more than 200 times. A new EPA assessment and final decision is expected in 2026. It will be very interesting to see what it concludes in light of this retraction, again putting the spotlight on corporate capture of the review process.
But What About the Way We Farm?
The damage isn't limited to human cells. A growing body of research is deep diving into glyphosate’s impact on the soil microbiome, specifically reducing the beneficial fungi (AMF) that plants need for nutrient uptake and soil structure. Evidence of decreased earthworm reproduction and the "locking up" of essential minerals like zinc and iron has led critics in the agricultural sciences to label glyphosate a "soil toxin." This shift suggests that even if human health risks are pushed to the courts, its impact on long-term agricultural viability needs to become a primary concern for farmers as well as policymakers.
At the end of December 2025 US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins released new priorities for research and development activities funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This in addition to an announcement earlier in the month about a 700m regenerative pilot program, which appears at first glance to be little more than a reframing of previous funding levels for existing programs. I have heard from many farmers that they hope this signals a push away from chemically intense agriculture. 2026 will show us if that hope is not misplaced.
While there is an increasing focus on the health implications of our continued reliance on toxic pesticides like glyphosate, millions are being spent on passing state level policy to prevent farmers from suing Bayer/Monsanto. Idaho, Iowa, and Missouri were the first states to see this new state level strategy in 2024, and two years later it’s now being seen in 12+ states. Modern Ag Alliance is a chemical company funded nonprofit registered in 2024 that is leading this nationwide effort. On their website they have subpages for states in which they are asking for this immunity. On their Idaho subpage they highlight glyphosate as the "#1 tool" for Idaho farmers, essential for crops like potatoes, wheat, barley, and sugar beets. Sugar beet farming is particularly dependent, with 98% of all sugar beet acres relying on glyphosate. They estimate that it saves Idaho farmers $72.4 million annually compared to traditional tilling (no source listed).
This pressure extends to international markets as well. Bayer and the U.S. government have heavily pressured Mexico to drop its proposed ban on glyphosate and GM corn, arguing that such a move would devastate American exports violating the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement). For many Idaho farmers and others who rely on international trade, the herbicide is framed as a non-negotiable tool for global competitiveness.
Bayer’s monumental push to stop costly lawsuits had a landmark victory in early 2025 when an Australia judge cleared all pending glyphosate litigation. In early 2025 there was also a new class action lawsuit filed in Canada. While in the EU, they are currently defending a ten-year renewal of the chemical's approval despite EU authorities linking it to cancer. It would be a mistake not to mention the renewed pressure regulators are facing from farmers in Europe. This push back is in part because there is a possibility for glyphosate to be restricted by member states, and there has not been adequate alternatives developed.
Bayer is currently fast-tracking a new herbicide technology called CropKey which is more of a farming platform than a traditional pesticide product. They also are seeking approval in many countries, including the US for a new active ingredient called Icafolin, the first herbicide with a new mode of action in 30 years. This new product wouldn’t replace glyphosate as a key tool for pre-harvest drydown in crops such as wheat, barley and dry beans. This practice has become default across farms worldwide, but is also tied to glyphosate residue in consumer products like children's cereal.
A lot Rests on the Court of Public Opinion...
During Idaho’s 2026 Legislative Session, we are expecting one of these state level bills to be introduced for the third year in a row. Despite the messaging from Bayer/Monsanto, the Idaho public isn’t being swayed. A September 2024 survey showed that 90% of Idahoans oppose giving chemical companies a legal shield. This public sentiment seemed to play a role in 2024 and again in 2025, when the Idaho legislature repeatedly blocked legislation that would make it even harder for cases like Roger’s to move forward in Idaho. Idaho's super majority Republican legislature held strong, refusing to let a foreign-owned conglomerate dictate state liability laws. Idaho's legislators chose to protect the rights of their citizens to access the courts. This was despite Modern Ag Alliance spending 600,000 dollars in Idaho, 4 times more than any other lobby group registered in 2025.
It is important to understand what is actually being protected by these state level legal shields. While the talk is often about "protecting farmers" the true beneficiaries are the global financial giants that own Bayer. Massive asset management firms like BlackRock (Bayer's largest shareholder) and Vanguard hold the keys to the company's future. These are the same institutions that many Americans have their retirement invested in, and that many civil institutions are heavily invested in, which signals yet another barrier to scaling least toxic alternatives.
While Bayer is having difficulty securing victories at the state level, the battle is also being waged in the highest court in the land. The U.S. Supreme Court recenlty announced that it will hear Monsanto Co. v. Durnell. This case is Bayer’s big attempt to bypass state laws entirely. If they win, it could grant the industry a "federal shield" that would effectively dismiss thousands of US glyphosate lawsuits like Roger’s overnight. More importantly, this ruling could extend far beyond glyphosate, potentially providing a legal shield for all pesticides and chemicals regulated by the EPA, essentially making federal approval a "permanent immunity card". It’s also possible that this new legal precedent could have further reaching impacts into pharmaceuticals and other consumer products.
Barely a week after USDA announced the 700m regenerative farming pilot, the Trump administration’s Solicitor General intervened at the Supreme Court to protect Bayer which made Bayer’s shares go up more than 14%.
Does Glyphosate have a place in Regenerative Agriculture?
There is bipartisan opposition to corporate immunity language being slipped into the new budget Congress is preparing in early 2026. It's important that this language is also kept out of the Farm Bill. Congress is under pressure to pass a Farm Bill this year, which is already over a year overdue. Mirroring the state efforts industry lobbyists are spending big to tuck a "golden ticket" for legal immunity into the bill.
For them, a Supreme Court win or a Farm Bill immunity clause isn't about soil health; it’s about protecting the valuation of their portfolios. However, even Bayer investors are getting restless; in October 2025, a judge gave final approval to a $38 million settlement to resolve a class-action lawsuit from shareholders who alleged Bayer misled them about the massive litigation risks involved in the 2018 Monsanto acquisition. I just wonder if normal people will see this kind of pay out.
While the era of blind trust in industry-led science is over, it doesn’t change the fact that the globalized food supply relies on glyphosate. We can look to India, which has heavily restricted the use of glyphosate since 2022. Following restrictions, illegal use is common and it's still the second most used herbicide after 2, 4-D. This may also signal chemical companies positioning themselves above the law.
We are in a strange political moment where the government is simultaneously protecting Bayer in court and calling for a pivot to regenerative agriculture. While we wait to see if this role out of the regenerative farming pilot scales glyphosate alternatives, organic farming across the country will continue to do the impossible. We need to make sure "regenerative" actually means restoring the land, and isn't just a new marketing label for companies like Bayer/Monsanto.
This push to make American agriculture more regenerative mirrors the organic movement, but lacks the same restrictions on glyphosate and GMO crops. I know and trust many farmers that aren't certified organic, and that back this increased focus on regenerative. At a time when food insecurity is increasing, organic food continues to be out of reach for most Americans, making it tone deaf to tout organic without really digging into the hard truths about accessibility. I for one would like to see farmers interested in shifting away from glyphosate use supported by this. It will be interesting to watch the USDA launch the regenerative pilot with the blessings of RFK Jr. and evaluate its success.
As Roger told me, these companies don't need more help from the government. The people living with the consequences—from the farmers in Idaho faced with up-ending decades of business as usual, to families shouldering the heaviness of cancer treatment, to people like you and me eager to see a shift in investment away from glyphosate reliance, we need support. We can not allow manufacturers of harmful products to operate with impunity. The chapter of the US’s reliance on glyphosate is having arc shifting additions added in 2026. It’s possible that we’ll see a doubling down in chemically intensive agriculture. Or it’s possible we’ll see the largest public investment in regenerative organic practices in human history carried by a swelling wave of consumer demand. I of course am aiming for the latter.
Christina Stucker-Gassi
Leadership and Campaigns Analyst