A groundskeeper in San Francisco
In August 2018, a San Francisco jury found in favour of Dewayne Johnson, a school groundskeeper with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who had sprayed Roundup and a related product as part of his job. The jury awarded $289 million, a sum later reduced substantially on review and appeal. The verdict found that Monsanto had failed to warn of a risk, which is a legal judgement about evidence and conduct, not a scientific ruling on causation for everyone.
The timing was striking. Bayer had completed its acquisition of Monsanto, for around $63 billion, only weeks earlier. Further verdicts followed, including the Hardeman and Pilliod cases in California. In 2020 Bayer announced a settlement programme worth roughly $10.9 billion to resolve a large share of US claims, without admitting liability. Litigation has continued since, with verdicts going both ways.
The United States: agency versus courts
The US Environmental Protection Agency has maintained that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. In 2022, however, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found parts of the agency's 2020 interim decision inadequately supported and sent it back, and the EPA withdrew that interim decision. Separately, California added glyphosate to its Proposition 65 list in 2017 on the basis of the IARC classification, prompting a long legal fight over what warning wording is permissible.
Europe: a renewal without a majority
The European Union's approval of glyphosate was renewed for five years in 2017 after fierce debate, and again in November 2023, this time for ten years, running until 2033. On both occasions member states failed to reach a qualified majority either way, so the decision passed to the European Commission, which acted on EFSA's and ECHA's assessments.
National governments retain room to move. France pledged to cut use and restricted many applications; Germany announced plans to end use before the 2023 renewal altered the picture; Austria's parliament voted for a ban in 2019 that ran into procedural problems. The EU framework, in other words, sets a floor rather than a uniform rule.
Latin America and Asia: decrees and reversals
On 31 December 2020, Mexico published a presidential decree to phase out glyphosate by early 2024, framed around health, the environment and the protection of native maize. In 2024 the government postponed the ban, citing the lack of viable alternatives for farmers. The episode illustrates a recurring difficulty: a policy goal can be clear while the practical substitute is not.
Sri Lanka banned glyphosate in 2015, partly in connection with a chronic kidney disease affecting rice-growing regions, a link that remains scientifically contested. In 2018 it lifted the ban for tea and rubber plantations after growers reported falling yields. Vietnam announced a ban in 2019. Argentina and Brazil, both major users, have kept glyphosate approved nationally, while some Argentine municipalities have set spraying buffer zones near homes and schools.
Weighing it up
The case for keeping it approved
- Major regulators find no likely risk at expected exposures.
- Bans without alternatives have been reversed.
- Farmers face cost and soil trade-offs.
The case for restricting it
- Juries have found failures to warn.
- Precaution where hazard findings exist.
- Pressure drives innovation in alternatives.
Our reading: the global picture is less a single verdict than a spectrum of risk tolerance. The most durable policies so far have been those that restrict specific uses and exposures while investing in alternatives, rather than sudden outright bans.