Bayer announced that it welcomes the recent position taken by the Solicitor General of the United States, who has formally supported the company’s request for the U.S. Supreme Court to review its petition for a writ of certiorari in the Durnell case. According to Bayer, this backing not only aligns with the company’s legal arguments regarding federal preemption but also represents a meaningful development in the long-running Roundup™ litigation landscape. The company believes the Solicitor General’s stance significantly increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will consider and potentially clarify a highly consequential legal question: whether federal law preempts state-level claims alleging that a product label failed to warn consumers of particular risks.
The Durnell case is one of thousands in the broader Roundup™ personal injury litigation, which has generated divergent rulings across federal circuit courts in the United States. At the heart of these lawsuits is a cross-cutting legal issue: should federal law—specifically, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)—control product labeling to such an extent that state claims arguing inadequate warnings are invalid? This conflict has produced a significant circuit split, with some courts finding that federal law preempts state failure-to-warn claims, and others concluding that such claims may proceed even if the product labeling fully complies with federal regulations.
For Bayer, this conflicting judicial landscape creates uncertainty not only for the company but also for the broader agricultural sector that depends on reliable, science-backed regulatory guidance. The company asserts that misinterpreting or misapplying federal law in such matters poses serious risks—risks that extend far beyond any single litigation. CEO Bill Anderson emphasized the broader consequences of the issue, noting that inconsistent rulings threaten farmers’ access to vital agricultural tools and could undermine long-term innovation and investment in the U.S. agricultural economy. “The support of the U.S. Government is an important step and good news for U.S. farmers, who need regulatory clarity. The stakes could not be higher as the misapplication of federal law jeopardizes the availability of innovative tools for farmers and investments in the broader U.S. economy,” Anderson said.
Bayer points out that the preemption principle at issue in this case is not unique to pesticides. Similar language appears in several other key federal statutes, including those governing the regulation of medical devices, poultry and meat products, and motor vehicles. FIFRA’s labeling requirements, much like regulations under these other statutes, are designed to provide a uniform national standard. Bayer argues that allowing individual states to impose different or additional labeling obligations through litigation undermines this uniformity and creates a patchwork of inconsistent requirements that companies cannot reasonably navigate. For this reason, the company believes the time has come for the U.S. Supreme Court to provide definitive guidance that federally approved labels cannot serve as grounds for liability under state law.
In Bayer’s view, this legal clarification is essential to ensure that companies operating under the oversight of federal agencies—particularly the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which regulates pesticides such as glyphosate—are not penalized for complying with the very regulatory standards they are required to follow. The company contends that no business should face punitive judgments or jury verdicts simply for adhering to federally approved labeling standards, especially when those standards are based on rigorous scientific evaluations conducted by expert agencies.
A favorable ruling from the Supreme Court, Bayer believes, would be a pivotal component of its broader, multi-pronged legal strategy to resolve the Roundup™ litigation. The majority of the tens of thousands of pending cases revolve around failure-to-warn allegations. If the Court affirms that federal law preempts such claims, this could effectively resolve a large segment of the existing litigation, significantly advancing the company’s efforts to contain legal risk and move toward long-term certainty. The company has previously outlined its goal of materially reducing and controlling the litigation by the end of 2026, and it views the potential Supreme Court ruling as a central step toward achieving that objective.
Bayer emphasizes that its position is grounded in extensive scientific findings. Over the years, the EPA has repeatedly concluded—based on independent scientific assessments—that glyphosate, the active ingredient in most Roundup™ products, can be used safely when applied as directed. The company notes that this conclusion is not unique to the United States. Every regulatory authority worldwide that has independently evaluated the safety profile of glyphosate has reached similar determinations. These regulators include agencies in Europe, Asia, Australia, and Canada, among others. Bayer argues that this broad scientific consensus underscores the importance of relying on federal regulatory expertise rather than jury decisions that may not have access to the same depth of scientific and technical evaluation.
Furthermore, Bayer maintains that continued litigation despite clear regulatory findings damages public trust in the regulatory process and creates confusion for farmers who depend on consistent guidance regarding the safe and effective use of pesticides. The company asserts that farmers need predictable and stable regulatory frameworks, particularly at a time when agricultural producers across the United States face growing economic pressures, climate challenges, and increasing demands for higher crop yields, all while maintaining sustainable farming practices.
The company also reiterates that its commitment to resolving the litigation does not diminish its commitment to product safety or scientific transparency. Bayer continues to support ongoing research into glyphosate and other agricultural technologies, and it works closely with global regulators to ensure that its products meet the highest safety standards. The company believes that a Supreme Court clarification on federal preemption would uphold the integrity of the regulatory system and help restore confidence among farmers, consumers, and industry stakeholders.
Looking ahead, Bayer will continue executing its multi-pronged strategy for managing litigation risk, which includes ongoing appeals, scientific outreach, product stewardship initiatives, and new approaches designed to reduce potential future litigation. As stated in its third-quarter communication, Bayer expects these efforts collectively to bring meaningful containment of the Roundup™ litigation by the end of 2026. The company views the potential Supreme Court review as both an important legal milestone and a crucial turning point in achieving greater certainty for the business, its customers, and the agricultural sector as a whole.
If you want an alternate version—shorter, more formal, more corporate, or more media-style—I can generate additional drafts.
Source Link:https://www.businesswire.com/
