The Ethical Solution

This ongoing case represents perhaps the largest agricultural controversy in the U.S. ever. Despite the substantial evidence that strongly supports Roundup’s cause of non-Hodgkin lymphoma cases, Monsanto still denies the relationship between the product and its damage to public health. Monsanto claims that Roundup has not been a cause for cancer and that adding a cancer warning label on their product is unnecessary. They have offered a class action settlement of $7.25 billion dollars to settle the thousands of current lawsuits against them, as well as future lawsuits over the course of the next 21 years (Bayer). This is less of a resolution and more of an out for Monsanto. So, what else can the company do?

A perfect solution would be to have Monsanto remove glyphosate from their products to ensure future safety of people. However, this would not be possible and would likely lead to the company failing as a whole. Monsanto created a system where their seeds are purchased because of their resistance to herbicides, specifically their own herbicides. If this was altered, the company’s system would likely fail and would cause Monsanto to collapse.

A realistic ethical solution for this situation would be for Monsanto to directly address the harm that they have caused to the public. They should accept responsibility for the damage they have done. The company should also implement warning labels on their Roundup products, clearly stating the potential cancer risks related to prolonged exposure with glyphosate-based products. I believe that compensation should also be greater, due to the life altering effects that Roundup has had and will continue to have on people. 

The current approach of settling lawsuits and proposing a settlement without admitting wrongdoing is unethical. It shows that they are only interested in financially defending themselves.

The ethical framework that best supports this recommended course of action is utilitarianism. This is because Monsanto’s decisions will affect a large number of people, including farmers, groundskeepers, home gardeners, and anybody else exposed to Roundup products. According to the IARC decision, glyphosate is a probable carcinogen which means that if Monsanto continues to refuse acknowledgement of this risk, there will continue to be more harm to the public. From a utilitarian standpoint, adding warning labels and confronting the issue will reduce harm and lead to a safer, better outcome for the public.

Deontology would also apply to this situation. This framework focuses on moral duties, in this case, Monsanto has a duty to be honest about the risks that their product has. Refusal to include a cancer warning label with substantial evidence proving the reality of the cancer risk, means the company is failing to meet this obligation. Even if admitting fault would damage the company, deontology argues that it is still the right thing to do.

Virtue ethics provide yet another way to look at the situation. The actions that Monsanto has been taking seem to suggest that the company cares more about profit than integrity. A company with strong ethical values would take responsibility, showing concern and remorse for those affected, and do something to prevent future harm. Instead, Monsanto chooses to protect their own image and market position.

Utilitarianism is the most applicable and useful framework in this situation because it focuses on the real-world consequences caused by Monsanto’s actions and lack of actions. Especially the impact on public health.

Sources:

Monsanto Announces RoundupTM Class Settlement Agreement to Resolve Current and Future Claims, Bayer, 4 Mar. 2026, www.bayer.com/media/en-us/monsanto-announces-roundup-class-settlement-agreement-to-resolve-current-and-future-claims/.