Workers' Compensation: Glyphosate: Workers at Risk

The collision of a presidential executive order, a $7.25 billion proposed settlement, and decades of occupational health research has placed glyphosate-based herbicides at the center of one of the most consequential legal and workplace safety debates in American history. For employers, insurers, and the millions of workers who handle these chemicals daily, the stakes have never been higher.

What Just Happened

On February 18, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to boost domestic production of glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup and the most widely used herbicide in American agriculture. The order designates glyphosate and elemental phosphorus as materials critical to national defense and food-supply security, and it delegates to the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to compel production and to set nationwide priorities for supply allocation.

Critically, the order also invokes Section 707 of the Defense Production Act, which confers legal immunity on domestic producers who comply with the order. This immunity provision has raised alarm bells among legal experts, health advocates, and the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement — many of whose members helped elect the current administration.

Just one day before the executive order was issued, Bayer — the sole domestic producer of glyphosate and the parent company of Monsanto — announced a proposed $7.25 billion class action settlement to resolve tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging that Roundup causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The proposed settlement would cover individuals exposed to Roundup prior to February 17, 2026, who have been or will be diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma within 16 years of the agreement's final court approval. Payments would be distributed over up to 21 years through a professionally administered claims program.

The Bayer-Monsanto Litigation Landscape

The Roundup litigation is among the largest product liability cases in U.S. history. Approximately 200,000 claims have been filed against Bayer and its subsidiary Monsanto since 2015. More than 130,000 of those claims have been resolved, with Bayer paying out over $11 billion in settlements and jury verdicts. As of February 2026, roughly 3,900 cases remain in federal multidistrict litigation in California, with tens of thousands more in state courts.

The litigation centers on claims that Monsanto knew glyphosate posed cancer risks — particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma — and failed to warn consumers. Landmark jury verdicts have included a $289 million award in 2018 (the case Robert F. Kennedy Jr. helped litigate), a $175 million verdict for an 83-year-old plaintiff in Philadelphia, and a $2.25 billion verdict later reduced to $400 million.

Adding further complexity, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Monsanto Company v. Durnell, with oral arguments expected in April 2026. This case could determine whether federal pesticide labeling law preempts state failure-to-warn claims — a ruling that could fundamentally reshape the litigation landscape for all pending and future Roundup cases.

Meanwhile, a key study that had long been cited in defense of glyphosate's safety was retracted in late 2025 by the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology after it was determined that Monsanto scientists had undisclosed involvement in the study's design, data collection, and authorship.

Why This Matters for Workers' Compensation

The implications of these developments for workers' compensation are profound — and largely underappreciated.

The Workers Most at Risk. Agricultural workers, landscapers, groundskeepers, municipal maintenance crews, highway department employees, and school maintenance staff represent the populations with the highest and most sustained occupational exposure to glyphosate. Research published in Mutation Research found a 41% increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma among agricultural workers with significant glyphosate exposure. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has documented that rates of pesticide-related illness among agricultural workers are 37 times higher than among non-agricultural workers.
The Workers' Comp Gap in Agriculture. The intersection of glyphosate exposure and workers' compensation is complicated by a structural reality: in most U.S. states, agricultural employers are exempt from mandatory workers' compensation coverage. Only 14 states — including California, New York, Ohio, and Washington — require coverage for all agricultural workers without exception. Twenty-one additional states provide limited coverage, often tied to employer size or seasonal worker thresholds. This means a significant portion of the most heavily exposed workers may lack the basic workplace injury protections available to employees in other industries.
Research from the University of Iowa found that workers' compensation identified only 18.5% of work-related agricultural injuries — meaning more than 80% of occupational agricultural injuries go unreported or are covered through other insurance channels. For occupational illnesses with long latency periods, such as cancer linked to chronic pesticide exposure, the undercount is likely even greater.
Increased Production Means Increased Exposure. President Trump's executive order is designed to expand domestic glyphosate production. If successful, it will likely increase the volume of glyphosate in use across American agriculture and potentially other sectors. For workers' compensation systems, this means a larger population of workers with occupational exposure and, potentially, a growing pipeline of occupational disease claims tied to glyphosate in the years and decades ahead.
The Immunity Question. The executive order's invocation of Section 707 immunity under the Defense Production Act adds another layer of uncertainty. While legal experts note that this immunity has historically not applied to product liability lawsuits of the kind at the center of Roundup litigation, the provision could be tested in court. If interpreted broadly, it could affect not only personal injury claims but also employer and insurer subrogation rights in workers' compensation cases where the injury is linked to glyphosate exposure.
Occupational Disease Claim Complexity. Workers' compensation claims for glyphosate-related cancers face significant hurdles. These include long latency periods between exposure and diagnosis, the difficulty of establishing a direct causal link between workplace chemical exposure and a cancer diagnosis, the need for specialized medical evidence and expert testimony, and varying state-by-state statutes of limitations for occupational disease claims. Employers and insurers should be aware that the evolving legal and scientific landscape — including the retraction of the key safety study and the growing body of independent research — may shift the evidentiary balance in favor of claimants.

What Employers and Insurers Should Do Now

Given the rapidly evolving landscape, employers who use or supply glyphosate-based products and the insurers who cover them should take proactive steps. Reviewing and documenting workplace chemical exposure protocols is essential. Ensuring compliance with OSHA recordkeeping requirements for chemical exposure incidents protects both workers and the organization. Monitoring the Supreme Court's decision in Durnell and the status of the proposed Bayer settlement will be critical for assessing future liability exposure. Evaluating workers' compensation reserves for potential long-tail occupational disease claims related to glyphosate exposure is prudent risk management. And for agricultural employers in states without mandatory coverage, the current environment makes voluntary workers' compensation coverage a serious consideration.

The Road Ahead

The convergence of expanded glyphosate production, the proposed $7.25 billion settlement pending Supreme Court review, legislative efforts to shield manufacturers from liability, and growing scientific evidence of health risks creates an extraordinary landscape of uncertainty for workers, employers, and the insurance industry.

One thing is clear: the workers who mix, spray, and handle glyphosate every day are at the center of this storm. Whether they are protected will depend on the decisions made in courtrooms, legislatures, and boardrooms in the months ahead — and on whether the workers' compensation system can adapt to meet a challenge it was never fully designed to address.

Related Information:

Jon L. Gelman of Wayne, NJ, is the author of NJ Workers' Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise Modern Workers' Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters).

Blog: Workers' Compensation

LinkedIn: JonGelman

LinkedIn Group: Injured Workers Law & Advocacy Group

Author: "Workers' Compensation Law" West-Thomson-Reuters

Mastodon:@gelman@mstdn.social

Blue Sky: jongelman@bsky.social

Substack: https://jongelman.substack.com/

Attorney Advertising

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Disclaimer