In agriculture, we are taught to trust the process—prepare, plant, tend, harvest, repeat. It’s a rhythm built on reliability and reinforced by a system that, while imperfect, has helped America feed the world. But that system depends on consistent rules, sound decision-making, and legal clarity. What we’re seeing in a wave of litigation against the manufacturer of Roundup is a threat to all three.

At the heart of the matter is a legal and regulatory conundrum that should concern anyone who cares about agricultural innovation or the integrity of our legal institutions. Bayer, through its subsidiary Monsanto, is being sued in state courts across the country for allegedly failing to warn consumers that glyphosate—the active ingredient in Roundup—causes cancer. The catch? The federal government, through the Environmental Protection Agency, has reviewed the science for decades and continues to say it doesn’t.

That legal impossibility has not slowed the plaintiffs’ bar. More than 100,000 lawsuits have been filed. The legal theory in nearly all of these cases is that Bayer can be held liable under state tort law theories for failing to include a cancer warning on Roundup’s label. But under federal law—specifically the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)—companies can’t just change product labels whenever they want. They must get EPA approval first. And the EPA, after multiple exhaustive reviews, has explicitly rejected the idea that glyphosate is carcinogenic or that a cancer warning is appropriate.

Make no mistake: this isn’t just about bureaucratic fine print. The EPA’s position is grounded in robust analysis and aligned with regulatory agencies in the EU, Canada, Australia, and more. In 2019, the EPA went a step further, stating that a cancer warning would be “false and misleading”—a violation of federal law. So let’s be clear on the problem: lawyers want a manufacturer to edit a label that the federal government forbids them from editing. This is not just a Bayer problem. It is a rule-of-law problem.

If states can allow trial lawyers to impose liability on businesses for not including warnings that federal regulators have said are untrue and unlawful, we’ve effectively unraveled the preemption principle that allows for a national regulatory framework. We’re inviting fifty sets of rules for one product—rules that run counter to the very foundation of our modern agricultural economy.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently sided with Bayer on this question, recognizing that federal law preempts these failure-to-warn claims. But other courts, including the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, have taken a different view. Bayer has now petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the conflict. Again, the outcome has implications that extend far beyond glyphosate.

We understand that the litigation surrounding Roundup makes some uneasy. It shouldn’t. The headlines are loud, and the technical details get lost. Many folks are frustrated with the modern state of human health and are looking to reverse what seems like a downward trend of disease-free longevity.

It’s also tempting to succumb to the narrative that the conundrum here is just another big company dodging blame. But Bayer is playing by the rules—rules written and enforced by the federal government. The company has already removed glyphosate from consumer products, while continuing to provide it for agricultural use where it remains essential to efficient and responsible food production.

According to a recent report from The Directions Group, eliminating glyphosate would increase farmers’ input costs by up to 2.5 times and add over 33 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere due to increased tillage. It would also drive over $10 billion in new costs to the Farm Bill and contribute to food inflation—raising the cost of food as much as 2.4 times. That should – and would – create true unease.

So what is the ask?

We encourage NC Chamber members and the entire North Carolina agricultural family—especially those who value innovation in agriculture and fairness in our legal system—to support the brave and sensible elected leaders who are working to bring clarity and consistency to these cases. One such effort is underway now in the North Carolina legislature. Senate Bill 639, the lead sponsors of which are Senators Brent Jackson, Norman Sanderson, and Lisa Barnes, would restore some sanity to the catch-22 crop protection manufacturers find themselves caught in. It deserves to become law.

The question here isn’t whether a product is popular. It’s whether the law still means what it says—and whether those who follow it should be allowed to continue to produce. If you respect crop protection tools, the rule of law, and an efficient food system, there’s only one right answer here. Nobody calls their lawyer when they’re hungry.

Ray Starling
General Counsel and President of the NC Chamber Legal Institute