Bayer, the EPA, and the Fight Over Roundup Cancer Warnings

Background: Glyphosate, Roundup, and Cancer

  <p>Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, the world's most widely used herbicide. Originally developed by Monsanto (acquired by Bayer in 2018 for $63 billion), it is sprayed on hundreds of millions of acres of U.S. farmland annually.<sup><a href="#s1">[1]</a></sup></p>

  <p>The scientific community is split on glyphosate's carcinogenicity, and this split is the foundation of everything that follows:</p>

  <table>
    <thead>
      <tr><th>Body</th><th>Position</th><th>Date</th></tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
      <tr><td>WHO / IARC</td><td>Classified glyphosate as <strong>"probably carcinogenic to humans"</strong> (Group 2A)</td><td>March 2015</td></tr>
      <tr><td>U.S. EPA</td><td>"Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" when used as directed</td><td>2020 (reaffirmed)</td></tr>
      <tr><td>European Food Safety Authority</td><td>Does not meet criteria for carcinogenic classification</td><td>2023</td></tr>
    </tbody>
  </table>

  <p>The IARC classification triggered a litigation avalanche. The EPA's contrary position became the cornerstone of Bayer's legal defense — and the reason EPA's actions under Zeldin matter so much.<sup><a href="#s2">[2]</a></sup></p>

  <h2>The $11 Billion Litigation Wave</h2>

  <p>Since 2015, <strong>more than 160,000 lawsuits</strong> have been filed against Monsanto/Bayer alleging that Roundup exposure caused non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and other cancers.<sup><a href="#s3">[3]</a></sup></p>

  <p>Key litigation milestones:</p>
  <ul>
    <li><strong>2018:</strong> Dewayne Johnson, a school groundskeeper, won $289 million (later reduced to $78.5 million) — the first Roundup cancer verdict</li>
    <li><strong>2019:</strong> Edwin Hardeman won $80 million in federal court</li>
    <li><strong>2019:</strong> Alva and Alberta Pilliod won $2 billion (reduced to $87 million)</li>
    <li><strong>2020:</strong> Bayer announced an <strong>$11 billion settlement</strong> to resolve roughly 100,000 existing claims</li>
    <li><strong>2023:</strong> A jury ordered Bayer to pay <strong>$1.56 billion</strong> to three plaintiffs (judge reduced to $611 million)</li>
  </ul>

  <p>Despite the massive settlement, tens of thousands of new claims continue to be filed. Bayer's stock has lost roughly two-thirds of its value since the Monsanto acquisition, driven largely by litigation exposure.<sup><a href="#s4">[4]</a></sup></p>

  <h2>Monsanto v. Durnell at the Supreme Court</h2>

  <p>The case that could end all of it: <strong>Monsanto Company v. Durnell</strong> (No. 24-1068).<sup><a href="#s5">[5]</a></sup></p>

  <p>John Durnell, a Missouri gardener, developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after 20+ years of Roundup use. A jury awarded him $1.25 million. Bayer appealed all the way to the Supreme Court on a single legal theory: <strong>federal preemption</strong>.</p>

  <p>Bayer's argument: Because the EPA approved Roundup labels <em>without</em> cancer warnings, the federal regulatory scheme <strong>preempts</strong> (overrides) any state law that would require such warnings. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), manufacturers must follow EPA-approved labels. If states can force additional warnings, Bayer argues, that creates an "impossible compliance" situation.<sup><a href="#s5">[5]</a></sup></p>

  <p>The counterargument: FIFRA doesn't prohibit adding warnings beyond what EPA requires. Companies can voluntarily include additional safety information. States have traditionally retained authority to protect their residents' health.</p>

  <h3>Oral Arguments (April 27, 2026)</h3>

  <p>The Supreme Court appeared <strong>skeptical of Bayer's position</strong> during oral arguments:<sup><a href="#s6">[6]</a></sup></p>

  <blockquote>
    <p><strong>Chief Justice Roberts</strong> to Bayer's attorney Paul Clement: Why couldn't states "hold chemical manufacturers' feet to the fire when they've made a determination that a product poses risk to their residents?"</p>
  </blockquote>

  <blockquote>
    <p><strong>Justice Gorsuch:</strong> "Because the greater power exists [to ban a product entirely], why doesn't the lesser power [to require a warning label]?"</p>
  </blockquote>

  <blockquote>
    <p><strong>Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson</strong> noted that EPA's 15-year review cycle may be too slow given the pace of scientific advancement.</p>
  </blockquote>

  <p>However, <strong>Justices Kavanaugh and Kagan</strong> expressed concern about conflicting state standards creating a patchwork of labeling requirements that could undermine federal regulatory uniformity.<sup><a href="#s6">[6]</a></sup></p>

  <p>A ruling is expected by <strong>late June 2026</strong>. If Bayer wins, it could effectively immunize the entire pesticide industry from state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits.</p>

  <h2>EPA Actions Under Zeldin</h2>

  <p>The EPA under Lee Zeldin took several concrete actions that directly aided Bayer's legal position:</p>

  <h3>1. Withdrew California Cancer Warning Authorization (May 2025)</h3>
  <p>In 2022, the EPA had issued a letter authorizing California to require Proposition 65 cancer warnings on glyphosate products. In <strong>May 2025</strong>, the Zeldin EPA withdrew that letter — removing a key piece of regulatory support for state-level cancer labeling.<sup><a href="#s7">[7]</a></sup></p>
  <p>This withdrawal was <strong>specifically cited</strong> in the Solicitor General's Supreme Court brief supporting Bayer's preemption argument.<sup><a href="#s7">[7]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>2. Updated the EPA Glyphosate Web Page</h3>
  <p>The EPA updated its public-facing glyphosate information page. FOIA documents show Bayer planned to <strong>thank Zeldin</strong> for this update during their June 2025 meeting.<sup><a href="#s7">[7]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>3. DOJ Reversed Position to Support Bayer (December 2025)</h3>
  <p>In December 2025, the Department of Justice reversed the Biden-era position and filed a brief supporting Bayer's preemption argument before the Supreme Court. An additional brief was filed in March 2026.<sup><a href="#s7">[7]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>4. Considered New FIFRA Labeling Rule</h3>
  <p>The EPA accepted a 436-page petition from 11 industry-friendly states (led by Nebraska and Iowa) requesting rule changes that would <strong>prohibit states from requiring cancer warnings</strong> on pesticide labels that contradict EPA risk assessments. Public comment was open through March 2025.<sup><a href="#s8">[8]</a></sup></p>

  <h2>Trump's Glyphosate Executive Order</h2>

  <p>On <strong>February 18, 2026</strong>, Trump signed an executive order titled <em>"Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides."</em><sup><a href="#s9">[9]</a></sup></p>

  <p>Key provisions:</p>
  <ul>
    <li>Invokes the <strong>Defense Production Act</strong> to classify glyphosate as essential to national security</li>
    <li>Delegates authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to compel production contracts</li>
    <li>Grants <strong>legal immunity</strong> to domestic producers that comply with federal directives</li>
    <li>Gives USDA authority to direct production and control distribution</li>
  </ul>

  <p><strong>Five days later</strong>, Bayer filed its opening brief to the Supreme Court in <em>Monsanto v. Durnell</em>, citing the executive order.<sup><a href="#s1">[1]</a></sup></p>

  <p>The Environmental Working Group called the order a <em>"big middle finger to every MAHA mom."</em><sup><a href="#s10">[10]</a></sup></p>

  <h2>The Zeldin-Bayer Meetings: What FOIA Revealed</h2>

  <p>In March 2026, the Center for Biological Diversity published documents obtained through FOIA that revealed a previously undisclosed meeting:<sup><a href="#s7">[7]</a></sup></p>

  <table>
    <thead>
      <tr><th>Detail</th><th>Finding</th></tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
      <tr><td><strong>Date</strong></td><td>June 17, 2025</td></tr>
      <tr><td><strong>Location</strong></td><td>EPA Headquarters</td></tr>
      <tr><td><strong>Attendees</strong></td><td>Lee Zeldin (EPA Administrator), Bill Anderson (Bayer CEO), Nancy Beck (Principal Deputy, OCSPP), Sean Donahue (EPA General Counsel)</td></tr>
      <tr><td><strong>Stated Agenda</strong></td><td>"Legal/judicial issues" involving the Supreme Court</td></tr>
    </tbody>
  </table>

  <p>The internal meeting memo outlined two agenda items:</p>
  <ol>
    <li><strong>"Supreme Court Action":</strong> Bayer would "give an update to the Administrator on where they stand in litigation and labeling options"</li>
    <li><strong>"Thanks":</strong> Bayer would "provide a small thanks for updating the glyphosate web page and work on MAHA"</li>
  </ol>

  <p>The timeline is damning when laid out sequentially:</p>

  <table>
    <thead>
      <tr><th>Date</th><th>Event</th></tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
      <tr><td>April 4, 2025</td><td>Bayer seeks Supreme Court review</td></tr>
      <tr><td>May 9, 2025</td><td>EPA withdraws California cancer warning authorization</td></tr>
      <tr><td>June 17, 2025</td><td>Zeldin meets Bayer CEO; Bayer thanks EPA for webpage update</td></tr>
      <tr><td>June 30, 2025</td><td>Supreme Court requests Solicitor General's position</td></tr>
      <tr><td>December 1, 2025</td><td>DOJ reverses stance, supports Bayer at SCOTUS</td></tr>
      <tr><td>January 2026</td><td>Supreme Court agrees to hear the case</td></tr>
      <tr><td>February 18, 2026</td><td>Trump signs glyphosate executive order</td></tr>
      <tr><td>February 23, 2026</td><td>Bayer files SCOTUS brief citing the executive order</td></tr>
      <tr><td>March 2, 2026</td><td>Additional DOJ brief filed supporting Bayer</td></tr>
    </tbody>
  </table>

  <h2>AOC's Congressional Confrontation</h2>

  <p>On <strong>April 28, 2026</strong>, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questioned Zeldin during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the EPA's FY2027 budget.<sup><a href="#s1">[1]</a></sup></p>

  <p>The exchange, which went viral, unfolded in three acts:</p>

  <h3>Act 1: The Question</h3>
  <p>AOC asked: <em>"Have you ever participated in a meeting with Bayer where you discussed the legal or litigation issues that the company was facing?"</em><sup><a href="#s11">[11]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>Act 2: The Denial</h3>
  <p>Zeldin responded: <em>"No, I never did. My meeting with them was very brief and that topic did not come up."</em></p>
  <p>Pressed further: <em>"I directly had a brief meeting. Okay. But it was a brief meet and greet and that topic did not come up."</em></p>
  <p>Insisted: <em>"I'm telling you a hundred percent. Absolutely... that topic was not brought up."</em><sup><a href="#s11">[11]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>Act 3: The Receipts</h3>
  <p>AOC then entered into the congressional record:<sup><a href="#s12">[12]</a></sup></p>
  <ul>
    <li><strong>EPA visitor logs</strong> from July 7, 2025, documenting the Bayer visit</li>
    <li><strong>Internal EPA emails</strong> from Zeldin's Senior Advisor for Agricultural and Rural Affairs, referencing a meeting with the Bayer CEO to discuss "legal/judicial issues"</li>
    <li>The <strong>FOIA-obtained meeting memo</strong> with the agenda explicitly listing "Supreme Court Action" and litigation updates</li>
  </ul>

  <p>AOC's characterization on social media: <em>"I asked Sec. Zeldin if he ever met with Bayer/Monsanto about their legal issues on glyphosate. He said 'No, I never did.' Then, 'my mtg was very brief.' Here are visitor logs + EPA emails showing Bayer's CEO, VP, & lobbyist meeting w/ Zeldin's EPA before their EO/SCOTUS filing."</em><sup><a href="#s12">[12]</a></sup></p>

  <h2>The Revolving Door: Industry Insiders at EPA</h2>

  <p>The Zeldin-Bayer meeting didn't happen in a vacuum. The EPA under this administration has installed multiple officials with direct chemical industry ties:<sup><a href="#s13">[13]</a></sup></p>

  <table>
    <thead>
      <tr><th>Official</th><th>EPA Role</th><th>Prior Industry Position</th></tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
      <tr><td><strong>Nancy Beck</strong></td><td>Principal Deputy, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention</td><td>Senior executive at the American Chemistry Council (ACC)</td></tr>
      <tr><td><strong>Lynn Dekleva</strong></td><td>Running Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention</td><td>Lobbyist at the American Chemistry Council</td></tr>
    </tbody>
  </table>

  <p>Beck attended the June 2025 meeting with Bayer's CEO. During her first EPA stint (Trump 1.0), she led efforts to rewrite chemical safety rules in line with industry positions, including weakening restrictions on asbestos and methylene chloride.<sup><a href="#s14">[14]</a></sup></p>

  <p>FOIA records from February to May 2025 showed EPA leaders accepted meetings with representatives from <strong>at least 50 industry associations and companies</strong>, including Bayer, Corteva, BASF, and Dow — with "nearly none" from environmental or health groups.<sup><a href="#s15">[15]</a></sup></p>

  <h2>MAHA vs. Trump: The Coalition Fracture</h2>

  <p>The glyphosate issue has created one of the sharpest internal fractures in the Trump coalition.<sup><a href="#s10">[10]</a></sup></p>

  <p>HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the figurehead of the MAHA movement, has long opposed glyphosate. Yet he <strong>publicly defended</strong> Trump's executive order, drawing fury from the grassroots MAHA community that helped elect Trump.<sup><a href="#s16">[16]</a></sup></p>

  <p>MAHA influencers have called the executive order a <em>"slap in the face"</em> that <em>"might cost the midterms for the Republican Party."</em><sup><a href="#s17">[17]</a></sup></p>

  <p>The 2026 Farm Bill compounded the divide, containing provisions that would further shield pesticide manufacturers from state-level regulations — putting agricultural industry interests directly at odds with the health-focused MAHA base.<sup><a href="#s10">[10]</a></sup></p>

  <h2>Following the Money</h2>

  <p>The claim that Bayer "paid off" Zeldin requires careful parsing. Here's what the financial records show:</p>

  <h3>Bayer's Lobbying Expenditures</h3>
  <ul>
    <li><strong>2024:</strong> $8.47 million in federal lobbying, including advocacy for "uniformity of pesticide labeling" under FIFRA<sup><a href="#s8">[8]</a></sup></li>
    <li><strong>2025:</strong> $9.19 million in federal lobbying<sup><a href="#s18">[18]</a></sup></li>
    <li><strong>2024 cycle:</strong> Bayer Corp PAC gave $224,091 to federal candidates<sup><a href="#s18">[18]</a></sup></li>
  </ul>

  <h3>Zeldin's Campaign Financing</h3>
  <p>A CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) investigation found that during Zeldin's 2022 New York gubernatorial run, two super PACs — <strong>Save Our State NY</strong> and <strong>Safe Together New York</strong> — spent a combined <strong>$20 million</strong> supporting him. These PACs later paid <strong>$900,000</strong> to settle coordination violation allegations (without admitting wrongdoing).<sup><a href="#s18">[18]</a></sup></p>

  <p>The CREW report suggests <em>"donors tied to industries EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin now oversees may have sought influence through secret financial support"</em> via dark money channels that obscured contributor identities.<sup><a href="#s18">[18]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>What's Proven vs. What's Alleged</h3>
  <table>
    <thead>
      <tr><th>Claim</th><th>Status</th></tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
      <tr><td>Bayer spends millions on federal lobbying annually</td><td><strong>Confirmed</strong> — $8.5M+ in 2024, $9.2M+ in 2025</td></tr>
      <tr><td>Bayer's PAC contributes to federal candidates</td><td><strong>Confirmed</strong> — $224K in 2024 cycle</td></tr>
      <tr><td>Zeldin's gubernatorial campaign benefited from dark money</td><td><strong>Confirmed</strong> — $20M via two super PACs, $900K settlement for coordination violations</td></tr>
      <tr><td>Bayer specifically and directly paid Zeldin</td><td><strong>Not proven</strong> — dark money channels obscure donor identities by design</td></tr>
      <tr><td>EPA took actions that directly benefited Bayer's legal position</td><td><strong>Confirmed</strong> — withdrawal of CA warning letter, DOJ brief reversal, executive order</td></tr>
      <tr><td>Zeldin met with Bayer CEO to discuss litigation</td><td><strong>Confirmed via FOIA</strong> — then denied under congressional questioning</td></tr>
    </tbody>
  </table>

  <h2>Fact-Check Summary</h2>

  <p>Evaluating the key claims circulating in public discourse:</p>

  <h3>"Bayer is trying to limit cancer warnings on their products"</h3>
  <p><strong>TRUE.</strong> This is the core of <em>Monsanto v. Durnell</em>. Bayer's legal argument is that federal EPA approval of labels without cancer warnings preempts any state requirement to add them. If they win at SCOTUS, no state could require cancer warnings on Roundup.<sup><a href="#s5">[5]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>"The EPA is helping Bayer avoid liability"</h3>
  <p><strong>TRUE.</strong> The EPA withdrew California's cancer warning authorization, the DOJ filed briefs supporting Bayer's preemption argument, and Trump signed an executive order Bayer cited in its Supreme Court brief. These are documented, sequential actions that collectively strengthened Bayer's legal position.<sup><a href="#s7">[7]</a></sup><sup><a href="#s9">[9]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>"AOC said Bayer paid Zeldin off"</h3>
  <p><strong>PARTIALLY ACCURATE.</strong> AOC's formal press statement characterized it as Trump's "decision to allow Bayer to poison Americans for profit." She presented evidence of meetings and potential conflicts of interest. The "paid off" framing is a stronger claim than what she formally entered into the record — she focused on the documented meetings, the denials, and the pattern of EPA actions benefiting Bayer. The financial influence operates through lobbying ($8.5M+/year), PAC contributions, and potentially dark money channels, not necessarily a direct quid pro quo payment.<sup><a href="#s1">[1]</a></sup><sup><a href="#s11">[11]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>"Zeldin lied about meeting with Bayer"</h3>
  <p><strong>STRONG EVIDENCE OF MISLEADING TESTIMONY.</strong> Zeldin told Congress three times that he "never" discussed legal/litigation issues with Bayer. FOIA documents show the meeting agenda explicitly included "Supreme Court Action" and litigation updates. Whether his statements constitute perjury depends on parsing whether the agenda items were actually discussed vs. merely planned — a distinction Zeldin may rely on.<sup><a href="#s7">[7]</a></sup><sup><a href="#s11">[11]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>"Bayer is effectively poisoning Americans"</h3>
  <p><strong>DISPUTED — depends on which scientific body you trust.</strong> The WHO/IARC says glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic." The EPA says it is not. Over 160,000 Americans have filed lawsuits claiming it gave them cancer. Juries have consistently found for plaintiffs. The scientific question is genuinely unsettled, but the precautionary principle would suggest warnings are warranted when a WHO agency classifies something as a probable carcinogen.<sup><a href="#s2">[2]</a></sup></p>

  <h2>What Happens Next</h2>

  <ul>
    <li><strong>SCOTUS ruling (June 2026):</strong> Based on oral arguments, the Court appeared skeptical of full preemption, but the outcome is uncertain. A ruling for Bayer would effectively end 100,000+ pending lawsuits and immunize the pesticide industry from state failure-to-warn claims nationwide.</li>
    <li><strong>Perjury referral possibility:</strong> AOC's evidence of Zeldin's contradictory statements could lead to a referral, though this is unlikely with the current congressional makeup.</li>
    <li><strong>2026 midterm implications:</strong> The MAHA fracture over glyphosate is a live political issue. If SCOTUS rules for Bayer before November, it could depress turnout among health-conscious Trump supporters.</li>
    <li><strong>EPA glyphosate reassessment:</strong> The EPA's own scientific review of glyphosate is due in 2026, which could further complicate the legal landscape regardless of the SCOTUS outcome.</li>
  </ul>