Free Yourself Daily Hub

Bayer seeks a U.S. Supreme Court review of federal preemption… Why this matters.

The Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) case sits at the intersection of food, health, environment, corporate power, and trust in institutions. It is not just about one company—it is about how modern agriculture works, who benefits, and who carries the long-term risk and the lack of accountability for poisoning millions.

Lets break it down…

Control of the Food Supply

Monsanto (Bayer) rose to power by patenting genetically modified (GMO) seeds, particularly crops engineered to tolerate its herbicide, Roundup.

Key implications:

• Farmers could not legally save seeds from year to year (due to patent infringements)
• A handful of corporations came to control a massive share of the global seed supply.
  • Primarily Bayer, Corteva, ChemChina (Syngenta Group), and BASF, now control a over 50-60% of the global seed supply, especially for major commodity crops like corn, soy, and cotton, leading to increased farmer dependency on their patented seeds and associated chemicals
• Food production shifted away from farmer autonomy toward corporate dependency.

Food is not a luxury product. When control over seeds is concentrated, food security becomes vulnerable to market forces rather than human need.

If that doesnt scare the crap out of you yet… just keep reading.

The History of Roundup

Roundup was introduced by Monsanto in 1974, but glyphosate’s history actually begins earlier.

Before it was ever marketed as an herbicide, glyphosate was patented in the 1960s as an industrial chelating agent, meaning it was used to clean mineral buildup from pipes and boilers. Its ability to bind metals made it effective for industrial cleaning long before agriculture.

Monsanto later discovered glyphosate also kills plants by disrupting the shikimate pathway, a metabolic pathway in plants and many microorganisms (including your gut microbiome!). Because this pathway was believed not to exist in humans, glyphosate was promoted as safe for human exposure.

Early marketing claims included:

• Rapid breakdown in soil
• Low toxicity to humans
• Minimal environmental impact

For years, Roundup was viewed as a near-miracle product. Its use expanded dramatically in the 1990s with the introduction of Roundup Ready crops, genetically engineered to survive glyphosate spraying.

This pairing of chemical + seed created a self-reinforcing system:

• Buy the seed → use the chemical → repeat every season

By the early 2000s, glyphosate had become the most widely used herbicide in human history.

Roundup Ready Crops and Corn

One of the most significant developments was Roundup Ready corn.

How it works:

• Corn is genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate.
• Farmers can spray entire fields, killing weeds while leaving the corn intact.

Why this matters:

• Glyphosate use increased dramatically rather than decreased.
• Crop residues often contain glyphosate and its breakdown products.
• Corn is not just food—it is a foundational ingredient in:
  • Processed foods
  • Corn syrup
  • Animal feed

This means glyphosate exposure is not limited to farm workers—it enters the entire food chain from all living organisms.

Long-Term Use of Roundup: What Changed Over Time

As glyphosate use increased year after year, several unintended consequences emerged.

Herbicide-Resistant Weeds

• Weeds adapted, creating so-called “superweeds.”
• Farmers responded by using higher doses or additional chemicals.

Soil and Microbiome Disruption

• Glyphosate acts as an antimicrobial agent.
• Long-term use disrupts beneficial soil microbes.
• This can reduce soil health and nutrient availability.

Increased Chemical Dependency

• Initial promises of “less chemical use” did not hold long term.
• Farming systems became chemically dependent to maintain yields.

How Glyphosate Affects the Human Body

The original claim that glyphosate does not affect humans is now widely questioned.

Gut Microbiome Impact

Although humans do not have the shikimate pathway, gut bacteria do.

• Glyphosate can disrupt beneficial gut bacteria.
• This may affect digestion, immunity, and inflammation.

Endocrine Disruption

Research suggests glyphosate may:

• Interfere with hormone signaling
• Affect estrogen and androgen pathways

Hormone disruption does not always cause immediate symptoms—it often appears after chronic, low-dose exposure.

Oxidative Stress and Inflammation

Long-term glyphosate exposure has been associated with:

• Increased oxidative stress
• Chronic inflammation

Both are underlying contributors to:

• Metabolic disease
• Autoimmune conditions
• Neurodegenerative disorders

Cancer Concerns

• The World Health Organization’s cancer research arm classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.
• U.S. court cases revealed internal documents suggesting Monsanto knew of potential risks earlier than publicly disclosed.

Thousands of lawsuits linked occupational exposure to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, leading to multi-billion-dollar settlements.

What is worse is how it will affect our future…

Fertility, Pregnancy, and Children

This issue becomes even more serious when we look at fertility, pregnancy, and early childhood, because developing systems are far more sensitive to chemical disruption than adult bodies.

Fertility Impacts

Emerging research has raised concerns that chronic, low-dose glyphosate exposure may:

• Disrupt hormone signaling involved in ovulation and sperm production
• Affect estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone balance
• Contribute to oxidative stress in eggs and sperm

Fertility challenges often do not come from one large exposure, but from small, repeated exposures over years—exactly how glyphosate shows up in modern life through food and environment.

Pregnancy and Prenatal Development

During pregnancy, the placenta does not fully block environmental chemicals.

Concerns linked to glyphosate exposure during pregnancy include:

• Potential interference with fetal development
• Endocrine disruption during critical growth windows
• Increased vulnerability of the developing nervous and immune systems

Even subtle disruptions during early development can have lifelong effects.

Children Are Not Small Adults

Children:

• Absorb more chemicals relative to body weight
• Have thinner skin and developing detox pathways
• Spend more time on the ground, where residues accumulate

Their brains, hormones, and immune systems are still forming. This makes timing of exposure just as important as dose.

Residential Exposure: Lawns, Yards, and Everyday Contact

Beyond agriculture, glyphosate exposure often happens much closer to home.

In many neighborhoods, lawns are sprayed with herbicides while:

• Children play outside shortly after application
• Wind carries spray beyond the intended area
• Bare skin comes into direct contact with treated grass

Most herbicide labels include safety guidance such as:

• Avoid spraying during windy conditions to prevent drift
• Keep people and pets off treated areas until fully dry
• Minimize skin contact

When these precautions are ignored, exposure risk increases—especially for children. Outside of spraying, once it enters the soil, the additional risk is the chemicals entering the water supply.

This is not a hypothetical concern. It is a daily, visible reality in many communities, where convenience often outweighs caution.

Regulatory Capture and Trust Breakdown

Monsanto became a symbol of regulatory failure, raising concerns about industry-funded safety studies, the revolving door between corporate roles and regulatory agencies …

Like the EPA… Again, like the EPA…

…and the dismissal of independent or contradictory research. Over time, this eroded public trust not only in Monsanto itself, but also in the regulatory bodies meant to protect the public, the transparency of scientific review, and the ability of corporations to be held accountable when harm emerges.

Monsanto was bought by Bayer in 2018 and what still remains is:

• Glyphosate is still widely used
• GMO monoculture dominates agriculture
• Chronic, low-dose exposure continues
• Now Bayer is the leader in the agricultural industry with Monsanto’s seeds and traits. 

The Roundup story is not about fear—it is about long-term consequences.

It forces us to ask:

• What does decades-long exposure mean for human health?
• Who bears the burden when harm takes years to show up?
• Should convenience and yield outweigh biological complexity?
• With declining fertility rates already, what does this mean for our existence?

Why Supreme Court Accountability Matters

At the heart of the Roundup issue is a larger question of corporate accountability.

When cases involving glyphosate reach the Supreme Court, the decision is not just about one product—it sets precedent for:

• Whether corporations can be held liable when products cause harm over time
• Whether federal regulatory approval shields companies from lawsuits
• Whether citizens retain the right to seek justice when safety assurances fail

If courts rule that regulatory approval alone absolves companies of responsibility, it creates a dangerous incentive structure:

• Companies are rewarded for influence, not safety
• Long-term health effects become legally invisible
• The burden shifts from corporations to families

Holding companies accountable does not mean rejecting science or innovation. It means recognizing that approval is not the same as immunity, and that real-world harm deserves real-world consequences.

This is especially critical for chemicals like glyphosate, where:

• Harm may take decades to appear
• Exposure is widespread and involuntary
• Vulnerable populations—children, pregnant women, farm workers—bear the greatest risk

Bayer wants the Supreme Court to rule that EPA approval of Roundup’s label shields the company from all state-level lawsuits, even when people claim the product caused cancer.

Bayer’s argument is essentially this:

“Because the EPA approved Roundup’s label and did not require a cancer warning, we should not be held liable in state courts for failing to warn people about cancer risk.”

Why Bayer wants this so badly

Bayer has already faced:

• Thousands of lawsuits from people with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
• Multiple jury verdicts finding Monsanto/Bayer failed to warn consumers
• Billions of dollars in settlements and judgments

A Supreme Court ruling in Bayer’s favor would:

• Shut down most remaining lawsuits
• Prevent future claims, even if new evidence emerges
• Dramatically reduce financial and legal exposure

This isn’t just about one case—it’s about ending the entire stream of liability.

If Bayer wins, the precedent would mean:

• Regulatory approval = near total immunity
• Companies are incentivized to influence regulators rather than improve safety
• Long-latency harms (like cancer or fertility issues) become legally invisible
• Families bear the cost when harm takes decades to appear

This is especially concerning for chemicals like glyphosate, where:

• Exposure is widespread and often involuntary
• Harm may not show up for years or decades
• Children, pregnant women, and workers are disproportionately affected

Why this matters beyond Roundup

A ruling for Bayer would not just affect glyphosate. It could apply to:

• Other pesticides
• Industrial chemicals
• Pharmaceuticals
• Consumer products

It would fundamentally change whether people can sue corporations for harm, even when regulators got it wrong—or didn’t have the full picture yet.

This is not just about a chemical or a court case. It is about the kind of future we are choosing to build. When decisions prioritize convenience and profit over long-term health, the consequences do not disappear—they are simply passed on. Protecting our children means asking harder questions today, demanding accountability, and choosing systems that value human health as much as yield. Our future depends on it