Public Response

What are other people saying about this issue? Recently there have been several new articles and reports on this situation from various sources. Many articles remain very fact based, providing minimal personal insight on the subject.

 The Reuters International News Agency released a broadcast reported by Diana Jones, discussing the Monsanto settlement on February 17, 2026. This broadcast provides a very clear summary of the controversy, directly stating facts about the case, and does not hint towards having an opinion about the case at all. This was the case among several other broadcasts I reviewed from various news networks. The broadcast mentioned key points such as the $7.25 billion dollar settlement and the 65,000 plaintiffs. The report also mentioned a 7.7% rise in stocks for Bayer-Monsanto as a result of the case. It was also reported that the company had resolved other Roundup cases confidentially. Overall, it appears that broadcast reports, such as this one from Reuters, maintain a very neutral stance on the matter. 

A report written by Keith Schneider on March 9, 2026, for Circle of Blue, provides a more opinionated stance. Schneider begins by stating the divide that exists in America, separating people into either corporate executives who send out teams of lawyers and lobbyists to influence government decisions. The other group is the citizens. He then explains how this case is a clear example of this.

Schneider continues, explaining details about the case and how it is one of the largest cases for a corporation in U.S. history. A very interesting detail he writes about is that President Donald Trump is directly involved in the case, reportedly signing an executive order that invokes the Defense Production Act, claiming that the production of glyphosate is a matter of “national defense”. He later writes “The company and the government argue that because glyphosate is safe, the federal label didn’t need to include the threat that using it could cause cancer.” (Circle of Blue). This argument is flawed because there is scientific evidence that it can cause cancer according to the IARC. It seems that there are also works by the government that would shield Monsanto from liability. Schneider states that the EPA is due for a reevaluation of its determination of the safety of glyphosate.

MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) leaders are said to feel betrayed by the President and Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr., with author Vani Hari, a MAHA leader, stating that the executive order to protect Monsanto is a “gift to pesticide and chemical industry lobbies at the expense of human health”. Another writer by the name of Kelly Ryerson states that “It is ironic that this move is made on behalf of national security, when the chemical destruction of both human and soil health is what actually threatens our national security and future as a productive nation”.

Schneider goes on to agree with this view. He finishes off his report by saying that the Monsanto goal of solely protecting market share is a clear example of how power is wielded in the U.S. He criticizes that this corporation who is to be held accountable for billions of dollars of liabilities is able to so forcefully control the government that their harmful chemical is now a matter of national defense.

A Harvard Law article written by Hannah Frater on November 18, 2024, discusses the facts about Monsanto and goes in depth about details of some cases brought to courts. Frater states that glyphosate likely causes cancer and that Monsanto denies that their Roundup product has any link to causing cancer at all. Frater says that there have been over 150,000 lawsuits related to Roundup.

Frater discusses a particular case in which the labeling issue of Roundup is the center. There were disparities in whether the federal or state laws regarding the labeling of chemical products would lead to punishment for Monsanto. Monsanto had argued that because they followed the federal requirements, that the state requirements do not apply to them and that they should not be punished based on state legislation.

Frater voices her opinion, claiming that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is flawed, and this is so because they do not require a cancer warning label for a pesticide that contains an ingredient that is likely carcinogenic, is subject to nearly 100,000 settlements with 54,000 active lawsuits at the time. A good point is made, that because the EPA reviews pesticide registrations once every 15 years, is scientists discover that a product is more dangerous than previously thought, there will be no requirement for label change until the next 15 years comes around.

Sources:

Frater, Hannah, et al. “Preempting Toxic Torts: Third Circuit Opens Split on Cancer Warnings in Schaffner v. Monsanto.” Harvard Law Review, 22 Jan. 2026, harvardlawreview.org/blog/2024/11/preempting-toxic-torts-third-circuit-opens-split-on-cancer-warnings-in-schaffner-v-monsanto/.

Schneider, Keith. “Bayer’s All-out Campaign to Protect Roundup.” Circle of Blue, 10 Mar. 2026, www.circleofblue.org/2026/agriculture/bayers-all-out-campaign-to-protect-roundup/.

“ Bayer Proposes $7.25 Billion Plan to Settle Roundup Cancer Cases.” Reuters, YouTube, www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1NJbAJT-Uw&t=19s. Accessed 21 Mar. 2026.