As the U.S. Solicitor General’s recent brief supporting Bayer/Monsanto’s Supreme Court petition sends ripples through the community of individuals pursuing claims related to Roundup exposure, fresh news of a major scientific retraction is gaining traction. This convergence of legal and scientific developments underscores the ongoing challenges in holding manufacturers accountable for glyphosate-based products. Below, we outline these updates and their potential implications for those affected by non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other alleged health harms from Roundup use.
The Solicitor General’s Brief: A Potential Game-Changer for Preemption
On December 1, 2025, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, filed an amicus curiae brief in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell (U.S. Sup. Ct. Docket No. 24-1068), urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and hold that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims when the EPA has approved pesticide labeling without a specific warning. This position reverses the U.S. government’s stance from 2022 and cites a circuit split, particularly the Third Circuit’s 2024 ruling in Schaffner v. Monsanto, which favored preemption.
The case stems from a Missouri jury’s $1.25 million verdict for plaintiff John L. Durnell, who alleged Roundup exposure caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma due to inadequate warnings. Bayer argued that EPA approvals—deeming glyphosate “not likely carcinogenic” and requiring no cancer warnings—bar state tort claims that would effectively impose additional label requirements. A favorable ruling could dismiss thousands of pending failure-to-warn claims nationwide, potentially resolving Bayer’s exposure from over 60,000 lawsuits.
Social media and legal commentary reflect growing concern among plaintiffs’ advocates, with discussions highlighting the brief’s alignment with pro-business priorities and its tension with critics like HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime glyphosate skeptic. The Court is expected to decide on certiorari soon, with oral arguments potentially in early 2026 if granted.
The Retraction: Undermining a Pillar of Glyphosate Safety Claims
Compounding the uncertainty, on November 29, 2025—mere days before the Solicitor General’s filing—the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology retracted a seminal 2000 review article, “Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans” by Gary M. Williams, Robert Kroes, and Ian C. Munro (DOI: 10.1006/rtph.1999.1371). The paper, long cited as evidence that Roundup posed “no health risk to humans” under typical use, was retracted following an investigation triggered by U.S. Roundup litigation documents revealed in 2017.
Co-Editor-in-Chief Prof. Martin van den Berg cited multiple ethical breaches, including:
- Ghostwriting by Monsanto: Internal emails showed Monsanto employees drafted significant portions without authorship credit or acknowledgment.
- Cherry-Picked Data: Conclusions on non-carcinogenicity relied solely on unpublished Monsanto studies, ignoring at least six other long-term rodent carcinogenicity studies available in 1999-2000.
- Undisclosed Conflicts: Evidence of financial compensation to authors from Monsanto, not revealed in the publication.
- Lack of Response: The sole surviving author, Gary M. Williams, did not address the journal’s inquiries.
Described as a “hallmark paper” by Monsanto influencing regulatory decisions for decades—including EPA assessments—the retraction erodes a key defense in glyphosate safety debates. While Bayer maintains reliance on “thousands of other studies” and global regulatory consensus, plaintiffs’ attorneys note its role in undermining peer review and biasing evidence. Online discussions, including calls to local governments to halt glyphosate use, signal spreading awareness.
The EPA has stated it did not rely on this specific paper in its conclusions, which draw from over 6,000 studies, but the retraction arrives amid an ongoing human health risk assessment expected for public comment in 2026.
Implications for Roundup Claimants and Class Action Participants
These developments do not halt ongoing cases. Juries in multiple jurisdictions, after reviewing internal Monsanto documents and independent evidence, have found Roundup capable of causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma and held the company liable for inadequate warnings—resulting in billions in verdicts and settlements unaffected by prospective rulings. However, a preemption victory for Bayer could limit future failure-to-warn claims, while the retraction bolsters arguments of scientific manipulation.
If you or a loved one used Roundup and faced a cancer diagnosis, a prompt evaluation can preserve your options.
Our firm, with 100 years of experience in complex litigation against product manufacturers, offers confidential, no-cost consultations to assess your potential claims.
This update is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.