JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Bayer is proposing a $7.25 billion settlement to address thousands of lawsuits in the United States that claim its glyphosate-based weedkiller, Roundup, is linked to cancer. This announcement marks a significant development for both the company and the many plaintiffs alleging that they were harmed by the product without adequate warning.

The proposed settlement emerges ahead of an important Supreme Court case scheduled for April, where Bayer contends that a lack of cancer warnings on Roundup, already approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, undermines the legal basis for state-level claims. If approved, this settlement would provide financial assurances to plaintiffs regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, potentially circumventing a greater liability risk for the company.

Bayer, headquartered in Germany, acquired Monsanto in 2018, which produced Roundup. The company has consistently maintained that glyphosate does not cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma, yet it has expressed growing concerns about legal expenses impacting its operations in U.S. agricultural markets. Bayer’s CEO, Bill Anderson, remarked that this settlement could bring “closure” to ongoing litigation uncertainties that have significantly impacted the company’s reputation and financial health.

Filed in St. Louis Circuit Court, the settlement needs judicial approval. The legal landscape surrounding Roundup is extensive, with about 200,000 claims filed against Bayer, including more than 125,000 since 2015. Of those, few have reached juries, with the outcomes notably mixed; Bayer won 13 cases, while plaintiffs attained favorable verdicts in 11, including a significant $2.1 billion award from a Georgia jury last year.

The settlement aims to resolve the majority of remaining lawsuits and any future claims related to Roundup exposure. However, Bayer has reserved the right to withdraw from the settlement if too many plaintiffs opt out, though it did not specify a threshold.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Bayer would contribute to a dedicated fund over 21 years, with individual payout amounts depending on various factors such as the severity of diagnosed conditions and the nature of users’ exposure to Roundup. For instance, farm workers diagnosed with aggressive forms of non-Hodgkin lymphoma before turning 60 could receive an average of $165,000, while residential users older than 60 diagnosed with less severe forms might see payouts significantly lower.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have differing views on the settlement’s adequacy. While some, like Christopher Seeger, representing current claimants, believe it provides essential compensation for those affected, others express skepticism. Matt Clement, an attorney for about 280 plaintiffs, indicated that the proposed payouts may be viewed as insufficient by many of his clients.

Amid these developments, Bayer has already halted glyphosate sales for residential use while continuing its use in agricultural settings. The chemical, designed to work effectively with genetically modified crops, remains a staple in farming despite ongoing concerns regarding its safety. The EPA maintains that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic when used according to guidelines, and no cancer warning appears on Roundup labels.

Bayer argues that federal pesticide regulations should preempt state-level lawsuits regarding product warnings, a position it is defending in the Supreme Court, particularly after a Missouri case awarded a significant amount to a plaintiff who developed cancer after using Roundup.

With varying views around the implications of the settlement, the conversation continues about the future of Roundup, its safety, and the accountability of manufacturers. As Bayer navigates this complex legal terrain, its actions will be scrutinized by both the agricultural community and individuals impacted by the product.