In a filing in a state court in St. Louis that was made public on Wednesday, the firms said the accord should not be fast-tracked for possible preliminary approval on March 4, just 15 days after the proposed settlement was announced.

The request is the first major organized pushback against Bayer’s attempt to resolve most of the 65,000 remaining Roundup claims in state and federal courts.

In a statement, a company spokesperson said Bayer remained confident that the proposed settlement was “fair to all claimants, and warrants approval by the court.”

“We fully expect a robust debate about the class settlement and are not surprised by either the support or opposition from plaintiff firms over recent days,” the spokesperson said.

A nationwide settlement

Plaintiffs say that Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, causes cancer, and they developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other forms of the disease after using the weedkiller at home or on the job.

Bayer acquired Roundup as part of its purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018. It has said decades of studies have shown Roundup and glyphosate are safe and do not cause cancer.

The German company announced on February 17 that it had negotiated with a group of plaintiffs’ attorneys to strike a nationwide settlement resolving nearly all the Roundup lawsuits it is facing by creating a new class action covering claims across the country.

The settlement would establish a program to pay claimants over 21 years, allowing not only people with existing claims to participate but those who were exposed to the pesticide before the deal was struck and diagnosed with cancer in the future.

In the filing on Wednesday, the law firms asking for the delay said they first received the more than 600-page settlement package the day it was announced, and cannot effectively analyze it quickly. In contrast, they said Bayer and the firms it negotiated with spent two years putting the deal together.

Bayer said the settlement would achieve “legal certainty” by ending years of costly litigation over Roundup while compensating current and future cancer claimants.

Company expects majority to participate

The deal, which requires a judge’s approval, does not require Bayer to admit liability or wrongdoing, and the company can back out if too many plaintiffs decline to participate.

Bayer Chief Executive Bill Anderson said on a call with investors last week that the company requires the “vast majority” of the plaintiffs to participate, and he expects that will happen.

The law firms behind Wednesday’s filing said a judge’s initial approval of the settlement would trigger a broad stay of all Roundup litigation, including cases stretching back nearly a decade, and unfairly prejudice sick plaintiffs who have waited long enough to go to trial.

They also questioned whether the settlement treats plaintiffs fairly. They asked for a delay of the approval hearing by at least 60 days to review the terms.

A group of plaintiffs’ attorneys who negotiated the deal with Bayer said in a statement on Wednesday that they hope the court will not delay the preliminary approval hearing.

The lawyers seeking to delay the settlement “are hopefully working as hard to communicate its terms to their clients as they are trying to delay compensation for the tens of thousands of Roundup victims who have waited a decade for justice,” they said in the statement.

Some lawyers representing Roundup plaintiffs who were not part of the settlement negotiations have also expressed support for the deal.

St. Louis City Circuit Court Judge Timothy Boyer, who is overseeing the class action, has not yet scheduled a hearing in the case.

The post Bayer’s proposed Roundup settlement faces first signs of pushback in court appeared first on Farmtario.

The German company said the proposed nationwide settlement, expected to be filed on Tuesday in state court in St. Louis, Missouri, would establish a long-term claims program funded by capped annual payments over up to 21 years.

The company, which acquired Roundup as part of its purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018, is facing claims over Roundup from approximately 65,000 plaintiffs in U.S. state and federal courts.

The plaintiffs say they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other forms of cancer due to using the weedkiller, either at home or on the job.

Proposed settlement aimed at heading off future lawsuits

The proposed settlement covers the bulk of the lawsuits, but will need a judge’s approval.

It is also designed to head off future lawsuits, and includes a provision that allows people who can prove they have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and were exposed to Roundup prior to Tuesday to file claims to receive a portion of the settlement for up to 21 years.

Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said on a call with investors and reporters that he is confident the proposed class action settlement will resolve the vast majority of the claims, although he declined to say how many people currently support the deal.

The company said it had separately reached confidential settlements to resolve other Roundup cases with specific law firms, although the company would not name the firms or specify the amount of those deals.

Company paid out US$10 billion to settle previous suits

Roundup is among the most widely used weedkillers in the United States. Bayer has said decades of studies have shown Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are safe for human use.

The company had previously paid about $10 billion (C$13.6 billion) to settle most of the Roundup lawsuits that were pending as of 2020, but failed to get a settlement then covering future cases.

It has had a mixed record with cases that have gone to trial. It prevailed in a series of Roundup trials, but has been hit with large jury awards in the past few years, including a $2.1 billion (C$2.86 billion) verdict in a case in the U.S. state of Georgia in March.

The verdicts shattered both investor confidence and company hopes that the worst of the Roundup litigation was over, and put pressure on Bayer to find a comprehensive solution to the lawsuits.

Supreme Court to hear appeal

Tuesday’s proposed settlement comes after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in a case that Bayer argues will sharply limit its liability in the litigation.

The company said the Supreme Court case, scheduled for oral arguments at the end of April, remains essential to resolving the Roundup litigation.

A favorable ruling would wipe out several large verdicts that remain on appeal and would also prevent future claims from individuals who choose to opt out of the nationwide settlement.

Bayer expects its provisions and litigation liabilities to rise from 7.8 billion euros (C$12.6 billion) to 11.8 billion euros. It anticipates around 5 billion euros in litigation-related payouts in 2026, and now expects negative free cash flow for the year.

The company has postponed publication of its 2025 results and 2026 guidance to March 4 to reflect the agreements.

— Reporting by Diana Novak Jones and Kirsti Knolle; Additional reporting by Dietrich Knauth

The post Bayer proposes $7.25 billion plan to settle U.S. Roundup cancer suits appeared first on Farmtario.

WHY IT MATTERS: Glyphosate is a key weed control chemistry that underpins systems such as minimal tillage on Canadian farms.

The journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology withdrew a 2000 review after Elsevier, its publisher, concluded the article failed to meet authorship and disclosure standards set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which establishes best practices for academic publishing.

The investigation found undisclosed industry involvement, reliance on unpublished Monsanto data and omissions of conflicting evidence.

“The scientific concerns … regarding (ghost-) authorship(s) and potential conflicts of interest, none of which have been responded to, are sufficient to warrant this action,” the retraction authors said.

The move has drawn wide attention because the paper circulated heavily in policy debates in the early 2000s, helping to shape public confidence in a product that later became the backbone of no-till and reduced-tillage systems across Western Canada.

But for regulators, the withdrawal does not alter current risk assessments.

Health Canada said the retraction does not change its position on glyphosate.

“While this review was previously considered in our assessment, it is important to note that the primary data sources were independently evaluated by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency,” the department said.

“Therefore, the retraction of this review does not affect our previous review conclusions.”

The department said its 2017 re-evaluation considered more than 1,300 studies and remains consistent with the most recent 2023 review by European regulators. The PMRA will continue monitoring international assessments and new scientific research, it added.

Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, said it continues to stand behind glyphosate’s safety and pointed to widespread regulatory consensus. It also disputed several of the claims made in the retraction notice.

The company argues that Monsanto’s contribution to the article “did not rise to the level of authorship and was appropriately disclosed in the acknowledgments.”

It also highlighted Health Canada’s 2019 re-evaluation conclusion that “no pesticide regulatory authority in the world … considers glyphosate to be a cancer risk to humans at the levels at which humans are currently exposed.”

Bayer added that modern assessments look at a far larger evidence base than anything available when the retracted review was published.

What this means for farmers

Nothing changes in the field. No follow-up review has been triggered in Canada, and none is expected.

The retraction does not touch maximum residue limits, tank mixes, fall or pre-seed applications or crop-stage restrictions. However, it does sharpen an already polarized debate, and it comes at a time when global regulatory views are diverging.

While regulators say the decision has no bearing on glyphosate’s current registration, the retraction arrives at a sensitive moment. The herbicide remains under intense legal, scientific and political scrutiny, and any crack in the historical record attracts attention. As well, because few products are as woven into Prairie farming as much as glyphosate, anything that shakes confidence draws attention.

Grain shipped to Europe already faces much tighter glyphosate residue limits and more aggressive monitoring than other jurisdictions, and shifts in public opinion can influence how European Union officials approach pesticide rules — a factor that can complicate market access for Canadian crops.

Public pressure is also intensifying in North America.

The recent appointment of U.S. health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime critic of glyphosate, has kept the herbicide in the public spotlight.

While his claims do not reflect the conclusions of regulatory agencies, movements such as the Make America Healthy Again campaign he spearheads can shift public sentiment and add political weight to calls for tighter pesticide rules.

As reported earlier this year, a proposed Canadian class action lawsuit alleges a link between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This case mirrors thousands of U.S. lawsuits that have resulted in billions of dollars in settlements and judgments.

Signals over recent months suggest the legal battles are taking a toll on Bayer.

In March, the company hinted that continued Roundup sales in the United States could be reconsidered if legal risks persisted. A few months later, chief executive officer Bill Anderson put it more bluntly.

“Unless something changes, we are going to have to stop producing glyphosate,” he told reporters in reference to the mounting payouts.

Bayer’s response to the retraction indicates the company still stands behind its product and believes it’s safe for humans. However, if legal costs keep mounting and public opinion shifts further, how safe it is for the company’s bottom line is another matter entirely.

Glyphosate’s safety profile

While litigation and public pressure continue to shape the conversation around glyphosate, regulators emphasize that today’s safety assessments rest on far more recent and extensive evidence than the withdrawn paper.

Many of the cases rely on the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s 2015 decision to classify glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” However, the IARC review assesses hazard, not risk, meaning it does not evaluate real-world exposure levels.

The IARC itself acknowledges this distinction, noting:

“The general population is exposed primarily through residence near sprayed areas, home use and diet, and the level that has been observed is generally low.”

That qualifier helps explain why regulators in Canada, the United States and Europe continue to conclude that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk under normal exposure conditions. Their assessments are based on risk rather than hazard and on studies published long after the 2000 Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology review.

Some of the recent research shaping these decisions includes a 2023 analysis in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, which found no firm association between glyphosate exposure and overall cancer risk in long-term U.S. agricultural worker data.

The PMRA also cites the most recent review by European regulatory authorities, completed in 2023, which it says reinforces the agency’s own 2017 assessment. Together, these are wide-ranging evaluations more than two decades removed from the now-controversial 2000 report.

Bayer argues this is why the retraction, while notable historically, does not affect current science.

While the retraction does not change the science regulators rely on today, it underscores the need for transparent separation between industry involvement and scientific assessment, and illustrates how questions about that separation can remain in the literature long after the fact.

In its notice, Elsevier was explicit that retracting the 2000 article was not a comment on the safety of glyphosate, but rather it was about applying industry standards long in place.

“This retraction does not imply a stance on the ongoing debate regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate but originates from directly following the COPE guidelines.”

The post Glyphosate study retraction to have little effect appeared first on Farmtario.

The article was initially published in 2000 in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. A retraction notice, published by Elsevier, the company that oversees the journal, cites undisclosed conflicts of interest, unacknowledged contributions from Monsanto employees and reliance on unpublished Monsanto studies. It concludes that the retraction of the study was necessary to maintain the integrity of the journal.

“The scientific concerns … regarding (ghost-) authorship(s) and potential conflicts of interest, none of which have been responded to, are sufficient to warrant this action,” the retraction authors said.

Health Canada said the withdrawal does not affect its current assessment of glyphosate because the review was only one source among many.

“While this review was previously considered in our assessment, it is important to note that the primary data sources were independently evaluated by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA),” the department said. “Therefore, the retraction of this review does not affect our previous review conclusions.”

The department said its 2017 re-evaluation considered more than 1,300 studies and remains consistent with the most recent 2023 review by European regulators. PMRA will continue monitoring international assessments and new scientific research.

Monsanto, whose internal studies and communications were cited in the retraction notice, was acquired by Bayer in 2018. The company has faced continuing lawsuits over glyphosate products, creating uncertainty about Bayer’s long-term commitment to glyphosate.

The post Retraction of glyphosate review raises new questions about landmark study appeared first on Farmtario.

Why it matters: Glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup are key crop protection products for Canadian farmers, but they’ve been the object of lawsuits on both sides of the border.

“Unless something changes, we are going to have to stop producing glyphosate … we have to find a solution,” CEO Bill Anderson said in a media call after the release of detailed quarterly results.

The company has previously replaced glyphosate in U.S. consumer products with different weed-killing substances and it earlier this year threatened to withdraw Roundup from the U.S. agriculture markets if lawmakers or courts cannot provide more legal relief.

Glyphosate has been approved for safe use by Canadian and U.S. health authorities.

— Reporting by Ludwig Burger and Patricia Weiss

The post Bayer CEO: we will have to stop U.S. glyphosate production if nothing changes appeared first on Farmtario.

Bayer, which produces the herbicide, said it acknowledged the court’s decision, “which did not find the company liable”.

Why it matters: Bayer has said it could pull glyphosate herbicide Roundup from the U.S. market if authorities strengthen product liability protections. The company has paid some US$10 billion in lawsuit settlements.

Lawyers for the Grataloup family said: “It is clearly a big disappointment for the Grataloup family and for us … The case deserves to be submitted to the appeals court.”

The lawsuit was one of the first high-profile cases centring specifically on prenatal exposure to glyphosate and congenital malformations in a child.

Research has suggested prenatal exposure to glyphosate may affect babies’ health at birth, but successful lawsuits have been rare. Bayer has said the product is safe for human use.

The German pharmaceutical and biotechnology group has paid around $10 billion to settle disputed claims in the United States that its weedkiller Roundup, based on glyphosate, causes cancer.

The European Union last renewed the approval of the use of glyphosate in 2023, through December 2033. The U.S. and Canada have both approved glyphosate for safe use.

— Reporting by Makini Brice

The post French court finds complaint brought by family in Bayer glyphosate case inadmissible, media says appeared first on Farmtario.

Holding up several corn stalks nearly ready to tassel, but goosenecked with fused roots, the Bayer Crop Science agronomic solutions advisor asked participants to assess what had happened.

“My corn looked awesome until just a few days ago, and all of a sudden it looks like this,” Freitag began. “Look at the tassels. Some of it’s definitely not going to be able to come out of there. I don’t know what the heck is going on.”

Why it matters: Plant staging accuracy, timing and weather conditions can significantly impact crop health and yield related to herbicide application.

Max Van den Borre, a BASF sales intern and University of Guelph Food and Agricultural Business student, played the role of an agronomist, peppering Freitag with questions.

When was the corn sprayed, and at what stage was it? What was used in the sprayer previously, and was this injury widespread or occurring in specific areas, such as the headlands, low or high areas of the field?

She answered the rapid-fire questions just as quickly.

At the end of May, at about the four- or five-leaf stage, she sprayed Roundup and Marksman at a rate of one litre per acre, with no potential sprayer input contamination. She’d used Roundup on some beans previously, and she’d never encountered previous incidents of injury with the application, noting it was not a Dicamba-sensitive hybrid.

“It was just in a few areas of the field; not every plant was like this, but there were areas where every plant was and then the odd one otherwise. There wasn’t really a pattern,” she said. “Maybe (in) the better parts of the field.”

It was that final statement that Van den Borre seized on.

“Was the crop more advanced in those areas? What was that stage? How did you stage it?” he questioned.

Freitag smiled, acknowledging she was impressed with the calibre of questioning.

“I didn’t really walk the whole field. Most of it looked like it was four- or five-leaf stage. I guess some of it could have been a little further ahead. I’m not sure,” Freitag said. “I just looked at it – one, two, three, four. The label goes up to five-leaf, so I figured I was pretty safe. But after I sprayed, it got really cold (at night), and (the temperatures) weren’t too bad during the day.”

With that, Freitag started a lesson on how improper staging and weather can wreak havoc on plant development because, despite Dicamba’s five-leaf label, she prefers to apply it no later than four-leaf.

“If it was on the upper end of that (five-leaf) staging or beyond, and those fluctuating temperatures – I think that combination is what hit it,” said Frietag.

BASF’s Distinct products have a little more latitude for later applications, but the early post-emerge products require extra care, she reiterated.

Participants debated whether Freitag’s early-stage corn plant example’s top leaf was considered “over” with another leaf emerging. Freitag said producers should overestimate leaf stage rather than underestimate, noting the coleoptile — the first, shorter, round-tip leaf — counts, even if removed, because the plant recognizes it was there. It’s possible the producer didn’t count it, she theorized.

“It’s really easy to stage corn wrong,” she said. “It’s critical that the applicator knows, or farmer knows – whoever’s making that call on when to spray – knows. Especially with any Dicamba products.”

Fluctuating temperatures can influence the staging throughout the field and impact how Dicamba application metabolizes the corn once it hits the rapid growth phase.

Last year, she assessed a field sprayed with Dicamba and Marksman at the six- to seven-leaf stage, which displayed some goosenecking and twisting.

“The farmer kind of laughed at me that I was panicking that he did that,” Freitag said, adding excellent growing conditions at application and after likely minimized the impact, resulting in a 200-bushel yield.

She explained that two weeks of cold, harsh weather could have stunted corn height but not the leaf stage, leaving producers focused on height because they “always spray it when it’s about three or four inches tall,” caught off guard by the actual number of leaves.

The examples Freitag showed didn’t leave much hope for ear development, in her opinion, but there are enough normal-looking plants that she’s hopeful pollination shouldn’t be an issue for the rest.

“I’m losing hope on the tassel,” she said, flipping the plant to display a gnarled root ball. “It’s fused right tight together. There’s a little bit open at the top, but that tassel is going to really struggle to get out.”

The post Staging slip leads to corn damage after Dicamba spray appeared first on Farmtario.

Beyond Pesticides, Moms Across America and the Organic Consumers Association on Thursday said the settlement calls for General Mills to remove the phrase “Made with 100% Natural Whole Grain Oats” from Nature Valley labels.

Why it matters: Glyphosate, particularly Bayer’s Roundup herbicide, is the center of thousands of lawsuits in North America over claims it causes cancer. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has assessed glyphosate to not pose a cancer risk.

The groups said independent tests showed that the granola bars contained 0.45 parts per million of glyphosate, and that oats were the “most likely” source of the herbicide.

While this was below the maximum 30 parts per million that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommends, the groups said General Mills’ label was deceptive and that “no reasonable consumer” would expect the bars to contain anything unnatural.

“Nature Valley is confident in the accuracy of its label,” General Mills spokesman Mike Siemienas said in an email.

He said the Minneapolis-based company settled to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation, and focus on making Nature Valley products “with 100 percent whole grain oats.”

The settlement came 13 days after a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto Co to pay a school groundskeeper $289 million (C$394.2 million) after he said his exposure to its Roundup weed killer and another glyphosate herbicide caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, has said it would appeal the jury’s verdict.

The General Mills lawsuit was one of many accusing food companies of using deceptive labels, including terms such as “natural” that do not have clearly understood meanings, to induce consumers to buy or pay more for their products.

In July 2017, a Minneapolis federal judge dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit over General Mills’ “100% Natural” label, saying that even if the oats contained traces of glyphosate, “there is no allegation that the oats, themselves, are not natural.”

A subsequent appeal was dismissed.

The consumer groups had sued General Mills two years ago in Superior Court in Washington, D.C.

The Organic Consumers Association sued Unilever Plc in the same court on July 9 over its labeling for Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, including a claim over the use of glyphosate.

The post General Mills changing Nature Valley labels after lawsuit’s glyphosate claim appeared first on Farmtario.

Why it matters: Glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup are key crop protection products for Canadian farmers.

Bayer has asked the justices to hear its appeal of a lower court’s decision to uphold a $1.25 million (C$1.71 million) verdict awarded by a St. Louis jury in a case in Missouri state court in which a plaintiff named John Durnell sued after being diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma he attributed to his exposure to Roundup.

The Supreme Court asked the Justice Department for its views on whether the justices should take up the appeal.

Bayer facing more than 67,000 lawsuits

The Missouri Court of Appeals rejected the German pharmaceutical and biotechnology company’s contention that federal law governing pesticides bars lawsuits like Durnell’s making claims under state laws. Bayer is facing more than 67,000 such lawsuits in U.S. state and federal courts. Other federal and state appellate courts have made similar rulings.

Roundup is among the most widely used herbicides in the United States.

Bayer is arguing that consumers should not be able to sue it under state law for failing to warn that Roundup increases cancer risk because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found no such risk and requires no such warning. Bayer argued that federal law does not allow it to add any warning to the product beyond the EPA-approved label.

The company appealed the verdict in Durnell’s case to the Missouri Court of Appeals.

Lawyers for Durnell asked the Supreme Court to turn away Bayer’s appeal. They said the plaintiff relied on Bayer’s advertising and not just the label when he chose to use Roundup, and the company’s marketing failed to warn consumers of the product’s risks.

Bayer may withdraw Roundup

The company has paid about $10 billion to settle most of the Roundup lawsuits that were pending as of 2020, but failed to get a settlement covering future cases. New lawsuits have continued to pour in since then. Plaintiffs have said they developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other forms of cancer due to using Roundup, either at home or on the job.

Bayer, which acquired Roundup as part of its $63 billion purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018, has said that decades of studies have shown Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are safe for human use.

The company has had a mixed record at trial in the Roundup lawsuits. Bayer has prevailed in a series of Roundup trials, but it was also hit with large jury awards in the past few years, including a $2.1 billion verdict in a case in the U.S. state of Georgia in March.

Bayer has asked the Supreme Court to consider the Roundup litigation before, but was rebuffed in 2022. Since then, one federal appeals court agreed with the company in a split from other appeals courts.

Bayer has threatened to withdraw Roundup from the U.S. market as it fights the litigation. The company replaced glyphosate in U.S. consumer products with different weedkilling substances.

The post US Supreme Court seeks Justice Department views on Bayer Roundup appeal appeared first on Farmtario.

The publicity to join the class action began this month.

As an example, McKenzie Lake Lawyers, a firm in London, Ont., says on its website that it’s pursuing a class action lawsuit against Monsanto and Bayer on behalf of Canadians who have had “significant exposure” to glyphosate-based herbicides and have a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Legal wrangling

In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a national class action lawsuit against Monsanto and Bayer, alleging that exposure to glyphosate products caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL).

The promotion of the class action was delayed for 16 months because Bayer and the Canadian legal firms were arguing about the definitions and criteria of the class action. In short, they were discussing who is eligible to join the class action and who is not.

Those definitions were sorted out this spring. The law firms can now proceed with public advertising to promote the class action.

Connection with cancer alleged

The lead of the Canadian class action is Jeffrey DeBlock, who is now 47 and lives in Toronto. As a teenager in the early 1990s, he worked on farms for summer jobs, spraying weeds with a backpack sprayer, according to a 2019 statement of claim submitted to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

At the age of 17, he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The lawsuit contends that DeBlock developed the disease because of his significant exposure to Roundup, the brand name for Bayer herbicides with glyphosate as the active ingredient.

In an email to the Western Producer, a Bayer spokesperson said the company has “great sympathy for Mr. DeBlock’s medical issues.”

However, they said Bayer is confident glyphosate did not cause his illness.

“Bayer firmly stands behind the safety of glyphosate-based products and will vigorously defend them,” the spokesperson said.

“Our glyphosate products have been used safely and successfully in Canada and internationally for nearly 50 years. Leading health regulators around the world have repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not a carcinogen and that glyphosate products are safe when used according to label directions.”

Health Canada safety reviews

One of those regulators is Health Canada.

From 2015-19, Health Canada conducted multiple reviews on the safety of the herbicide. A Frequently Asked Questions page on the Health Canada website says the following:

“No pesticide regulatory authority in the world, including Health Canada, considers glyphosate to be a carcinogenic risk of concern to humans.”

Despite those findings, the DeBlock class action has been working its way through Canadian courts since 2019. The certification, in December 2023, means the lawsuit meets the criteria of a class action. It isn’t a decision on the merits of DeBlock’s case.

“In order for an action to proceed as a class action, the court must determine whether it is appropriate for the case to be treated as a class action,” says Koskie Minsky, the Toronto law firm leading the Roundup class action.

The DeBlock case and almost all Roundup lawsuits are founded on a United Nations International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) decision. In March of 2025, it classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

That finding has been rejected by Health Canada, the European Food Safety Authority, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which all say that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer.

Bayer spending big money on litigation

Bayer is spending a significant amount of money in legal costs defending the safety of Roundup.

Chief executive officer Bill Anderson told the Wall Street Journal that in some years the German firm spent more on litigation costs related to Roundup than it did on research and development of new agricultural products.

“We barely break even on glyphosate production and distribution,” he said in an April 14 WSJ article.

“If you then factor in litigation, you’re talking US$2 billion to $3 billion in losses a year.”

Bayer has dealt with 114,000 claims regarding the safety of glyphosate, and most of those cases have been resolved or deemed to be ineligible.

However, there are still 67,000 active lawsuits in the United States.

Anderson is determined to get the corporation’s legal costs under control. If that can’t be accomplished, the company might pull the herbicide from the U.S. market.

“We’re pretty much reaching the end of the road…. We’re talking months, not years.”

No decisions made

A spokesperson for Bayer clarified that there is no “timeline” for the availability of glyphosate.

“As of today, no decision has been made about the future of glyphosate for Bayer in the U.S. or Canada, and we do not have a specific timeline,” they said.

“Bayer is focused on critical items this year to contain glyphosate litigation in the U.S. We hope we can find resolution so that we are not forced to stop selling this product.”

As for Canada, the class action is likely years from being in front of a judge who will decide the case.

In an email, Koskie Minsky explained the next legal steps.

“Notice about the certification of the class action will be provided to class members, and class members will have to decide whether they want to remain in the action or opt out. After this stage, the litigation will move on to the discovery phase, which involves exchange of documents … in preparation for trial of the common issues,” it said.

“We are not able to provide estimates of the class size.”

The post Glyphosate class action moves forward in Canada appeared first on Farmtario.