A Missouri jury delivered a unanimous defense verdict for Monsanto in the first Roundup trial following the U.S. Supreme Court's Monsanto v. Durnell decision.
Monsanto has secured a unanimous defense verdict in the first Roundup case to go to trial since a major U.S. Supreme Court decision changed the legal landscape surrounding failure-to-warn claims.
A Missouri Circuit Court jury ruled in favor of Monsanto in "Theresa Aretino, et al. v. Monsanto Company", a case involving three plaintiffs who pursued design-defect, fraud and negligence claims.
The October 30 verdict comes approximately four months after the U.S. Supreme Court decided "Monsanto Co. v. Durnell", a case addressing whether federal pesticide law preempts certain state-law failure-to-warn claims involving Roundup.
Supreme Court decision changes Roundup litigation
The Supreme Court issued its decision in "Monsanto v. Durnell" on June 25, 2026.
At issue was the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, commonly known as FIFRA, and its restrictions on states imposing pesticide labeling requirements that differ from federal requirements.
The Supreme Court held that FIFRA preempted John Durnell's state-law failure-to-warn claim because the claim would have required Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup's label.
Under FIFRA, a pesticide manufacturer must use the label approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency unless and until EPA approves or requires a change.
That decision affected the claims available in the subsequent Missouri case.
According to Bayer's announcement about the Aretino verdict, the three plaintiffs pursued design-defect, fraud and negligence claims after failure-to-warn claims were preempted under the Supreme Court decision.
The company described Aretino as the first Roundup trial since the Durnell decision and the first trial testing the evidence supporting design-defect and negligence claims in the post-Durnell legal environment.
Jury sides with Monsanto
The Missouri jury unanimously ruled for Monsanto on the design-defect, fraud and negligence claims pursued by each of the three plaintiffs, according to Bayer.
Bill Dodero, U.S. General Counsel and Global Head of Litigation, said the company believes the verdict demonstrates the difficulty plaintiffs may face when pursuing other types of Roundup claims following the Supreme Court decision.
"We are pleased with the jury's favorable verdict for Monsanto validating our belief that there is no evidence to prove design defect, fraud or negligence claims in the Roundup litigation," Dodero said in the company release.
The verdict does not mean that every remaining Roundup lawsuit has been resolved. Rather, it provides an early indication of how a jury assessed claims other than failure to warn following the Supreme Court's Durnell ruling.
Where EPA stands on glyphosate
Glyphosate remains an important weed-control product for American agriculture and is registered by EPA for numerous agricultural and non-agricultural uses.
EPA currently lists agricultural uses that include corn, cotton, canola, soybeans, sugar beets, alfalfa, cereal grains, grain sorghum, orchards, oilseeds and numerous fruit and vegetable crops.
EPA says its 2017 human-health risk assessment did not identify risks of concern from glyphosate uses, including for cancer, dietary and drinking-water exposure and residential exposure.
However, EPA is continuing its registration review of glyphosate and is updating its human-health risk assessment to incorporate more recent scientifically relevant published literature.
The agency says completion of that updated human-health assessment is anticipated in late 2026.
That ongoing review is an important qualification when discussing the regulatory status of glyphosate: EPA's scientific and regulatory evaluation is continuing.
Why the ruling matters for U.S. agriculture
For U.S. farmers, the Missouri decision is noteworthy because glyphosate remains registered for use across a wide range of crops and production systems.
The broader legal significance comes from the Supreme Court's interpretation of FIFRA.
In Durnell, the Court concluded that FIFRA's preemption provision prevented the state-law failure-to-warn claim at issue because it would have required a cancer warning beyond the federally approved Roundup labeling.
The Missouri verdict now provides the first reported trial result cited by Bayer involving other claims after that Supreme Court decision.
Future Roundup cases will depend on the specific claims, evidence and circumstances involved, so the Aretino verdict should not be interpreted as automatically determining the outcome of every remaining case.
For growers, the fundamental requirement remains unchanged: pesticide products should be used according to their EPA-approved labels.
As Roundup litigation continues, farmers and the agricultural industry will be watching both the courts and EPA. The legal questions surrounding pesticide labeling have moved significantly following Durnell, while EPA's scientific review of glyphosate continues separately through the federal pesticide registration process.
Photo Credit: Bayer