Kentucky lawmakers have ignored Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s objections to enacting a new law that could protect global agrichemical maker Bayer from government lawsuits alleging it failed to warn customers that a commonly used herbicide can cause cancer.
The veto override by Kentucky’s Republican-led General Assembly on Wednesday comes just weeks before a US Supreme Court hearing. Arguments in the case Which could establish a national shield against such liability lawsuits. It also comes as Bayer asks a Missouri court for approval Settlement worth $7.25 billion This could resolve tens of thousands of claims that its Roundup herbicide caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
The multi-pronged action in government capitals and courtrooms highlights what has become a pressing financial issue for the Germany-based company, also known for its pharmaceutical products. It also hits on the issue revealed Divided views Among supporters of President Donald Trump and the Make America Healthy Again movement.
Here’s what to know about Bayer-related legislation and lawsuits:
Monsanto first introduced the herbicide Roundup in 1974 using the chemical glyphosate as the active ingredient. The product quickly became one of the most widely used herbicides in agriculture. Roundup is designed to be used with genetically modified seeds that can resist the deadly effects of herbicides, allowing farmers to produce more while conserving soil by tilling it less.
Bayer added Roundup of her portfolio when it acquired Missouri-based Monsanto in 2018. With that came a growing number of lawsuits alleging that glyphosate causes a cancer known as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. About 200,000 Claims related to the report It is now against Bayer.
The company disputes carcinogenic assertions. But Bayer said legal costs threaten its ability to continue selling glyphosate-based products in U.S. agricultural markets. It has already removed glyphosate from its new versions of Roundup for residential markets.
Although some studies link glyphosate to cancer, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it is unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed. The federally approved label for Roundup does not include any cancer warning.
At the heart of most of the lawsuits is an allegation that Roundup’s manufacturer failed to warn customers of the potential cancer risk.
Bayer has joined a coalition of agricultural organizations called the Modern Ag Alliance to try to prevent similar claims in the future. They supported Bills in multiple states Advertising a federally approved label on a pesticide is sufficient to satisfy any duty under state law to warn customers.
North Dakota and Georgia became the first states to enact the legal shield last year. Kentucky became the third state when lawmakers voted to override Beshear’s veto.
“Farmers need clear, consistent rules to plan ahead and keep their operations profitable,” Elizabeth Burns Thompson, executive director of the Modern Ag Alliance, said while praising Kentucky’s law.
Beshear, the former state attorney general, noted that many other items already contain warning labels, including cosmetics, personal hygiene products and household cleaners.
But Kentucky’s action “would allow dangerous pesticides to be sold without labels warning of the dangers of their use. It is inconsistent with making America healthy,” Beshear said in his veto message.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on April 27 Missouri case A jury awarded $1.25 million to a man who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after Roundup was sprayed at a community park in St. Louis. Jurors held Monsanto liable for failing to warn of the risks.
Bayer asserts that federal pesticide laws preclude failure-to-warn claims under state laws, because states cannot require additional labeling.
The Trump administration sided with Bayer, reversing the position of former President Joe Biden’s administration, and putting it at odds with some supporters. The “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. Who oppose granting companies legal immunity from such claims.
The case has attracted a lot of attention. Farm groups, business associations, health care organizations, plaintiffs’ lawyers and state elected officials came together to file about 30 separate legal briefs urging the Supreme Court to rule either for or against Bayer’s assertion of federal legal protections.
Among them is a group of former EPA officials who say lawsuits should be allowed at the state level. The maker of Roundup never proposed that the EPA include a cancer warning on its labels, so the lack of such labeling “cannot be understood as an implicit denial of such a warning” and should not preempt lawsuits over failure to warn, the court filing said.
A St. Louis Circuit Court judge gave tentative approval last month to a proposed settlement aimed at resolving most of the pending and future failure-to-warn claims related to Roundup. This triggered the notice period in which people could opt out of the settlement by June 4.
The proposed deal calls for Bayer to make annual payments into a special fund for up to 21 years, totaling up to $7.25 billion. The amount paid to individuals varies depending on how they use Roundup, their age when they are diagnosed, and the severity of their non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
An agricultural, industrial or lawn worker with prolonged exposure to Roundup would receive an average of $165,000 if they were diagnosed with an aggressive form of the disease when they were younger than 60, according to the proposed settlement. People diagnosed age 78 or older will receive an average of $10,000.
The settlement would eliminate some of the risks resulting from a final Supreme Court ruling. Patients will be guaranteed to receive the settlement money even if the Supreme Court rules in Bayer’s favor. Bayer will be protected from potentially larger costs if the Supreme Court rules against it.