From James Lyons-Weiler, PhD
Listen to the audio version of this article:
Editor’s note: For years, ANH-USA has warned that chemical-intensive agriculture and corporate influence over our regulatory system are putting public health—and consumer choice—at risk. From our advocacy on glyphosate to our broader push for transparency, accountability, and safer food systems, we’ve consistently argued that Americans shouldn’t have to choose between access to food and protection from harmful chemicals.
That’s why we’re sharing this excellent commentary from scientist James Lyons-Weiler. In it, he breaks down Bayer’s attempt to secure sweeping legal immunity over its flagship herbicide, Roundup herbicide, and explains why the fight isn’t just about one company or one chemical. As he argues, the real solution lies in challenging the deeper system of chemical dependency in our food, homes, and communities—and empowering citizens to demand healthier alternatives.
Read the article below.
Bayer’s recent threat to pull Roundup from the American market unless granted sweeping immunity from liability lawsuits isn’t a business decision—it’s a carefully crafted political maneuver designed to trap us in a false choice. The company wants us to believe we’re caught between corporate immunity and agricultural chaos, between chemical dependency and empty grocery shelves.
But this is an illusion—and it’s precisely the stalemate Bayer wants.
Here’s the truth: Glyphosate-based herbicides won’t disappear even if Bayer pulls out. The United States already imports generic glyphosate, and research consistently shows these alternatives perform equally well. Moreover, most glyphosate-treated corn isn’t grown for direct human consumption. A significant portion is directed toward livestock feed and ethanol production. Most critically, our food system is robust enough to adapt quickly without disruptions to the American food supply.
Best of all? We hold the power of the purse. Literally. Consumer demands drive supply.
Bayer’s real goal isn’t to protect food security—it’s to protect itself from accountability.
Currently, Bayer is pursuing a $7.25 billion settlement structured specifically to discourage plaintiffs from opting out, while simultaneously pushing for a Supreme Court ruling that could broadly preempt state-law failure-to-warn claims. This legal maneuver would effectively insulate the company from meaningful accountability for harm caused by its products. Understanding this legal nuance helps reveal precisely why the fight against “liability-free pesticides” is critical.
Read the rest of the article here, and take action below.
Action Alert!
