The Glyphosate Gamble: Georgia's New Law and the Future of Agriculture
May 16, 2025, 5:17 am
In a bold move, Georgia has become the second state in the U.S. to shield Bayer, the maker of Roundup, from certain cancer claims. This law, set to take effect on January 1, 2026, is a double-edged sword. It aims to protect farmers and the agricultural industry, but it raises questions about public health and corporate accountability.
Bayer has been in the crosshairs of litigation for years. The company insists glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is safe. Yet, it has stopped using glyphosate in its residential products and set aside a staggering $16 billion to settle ongoing lawsuits. This decision reflects a growing concern over the safety of glyphosate, especially after a Georgia jury awarded nearly $2.1 billion to a man who claimed Roundup caused his cancer.
The new law will not affect existing cases. It’s a shield for the future, a way to stave off the mounting legal costs that threaten Bayer’s agricultural operations. The company continues to use glyphosate in its agricultural products, arguing that without it, weeds could become harder to control, crop yields could decline, and grocery prices could soar. It’s a high-stakes game, where the stakes are not just financial but also health-related.
Bayer is not sitting idle. The company has teamed up with agricultural groups to launch a multi-pronged campaign. They are pushing for legislation at both state and federal levels. They have even turned to the U.S. Supreme Court for intervention. Billboards, newspapers, TV, and radio ads are flooding the airwaves, all touting the importance of glyphosate in modern agriculture. It’s a classic case of corporate resilience in the face of adversity.
But what does this mean for farmers? The law is framed as a victory for them. Brian Naber, president of Bayer’s crop sciences in North America, claims it demonstrates Georgia’s support for farmers who work tirelessly to produce safe and affordable food. Farmers rely on glyphosate for its efficiency. It allows them to control weeds with less tilling, which helps prevent soil erosion. In a world where food security is paramount, the argument for glyphosate is compelling.
However, the question lingers: at what cost? The health implications of glyphosate are still under scrutiny. Critics argue that the law prioritizes corporate interests over public health. They fear that shielding Bayer from lawsuits could embolden the company to continue using glyphosate without fully addressing its potential risks. It’s a precarious balance between agricultural efficiency and consumer safety.
Meanwhile, Denmark is navigating its own economic waters, driven by a booming pharmaceutical sector. The country experienced an “exceptional surge” in drug exports, particularly from companies like Novo Nordisk. However, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts a slowdown in growth. Denmark’s economy grew by 3.7% in 2024 but is expected to moderate to 2.9% this year and further down to 1.8% in 2026.
The looming threat of U.S. tariffs on pharmaceuticals is a concern, but the IMF suggests it won’t significantly impact Denmark’s economy. Most Danish drug products are not produced domestically, limiting the direct effects of potential tariffs. The country has become increasingly reliant on a “merchanting and processing” system, where the value of medicines comes from intellectual property rather than physical production.
Despite the challenges, Denmark’s pharmaceutical industry remains robust. Novo Nordisk’s diabetes and weight loss medications have seen soaring demand, contributing significantly to the country’s GDP. However, the company faced setbacks when the U.S. FDA allowed compounding pharmacies to create copycat versions of its drugs. This move temporarily impacted sales, but with the FDA declaring the shortage over, Novo Nordisk anticipates a rebound.
The broader European pharmaceutical industry faces a more daunting challenge. U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats of tariffs on drug imports loom large. While pharmaceuticals were initially exempt from his tariff regime, the president has since targeted the global industry, demanding lower drug prices. This has created a climate of uncertainty, with CEOs warning of a potential exodus of major players to the U.S. to avoid levies.
The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) has raised alarms about the risks to investment in Europe. They argue that without rapid policy changes, research and development could shift towards the U.S. The U.S. now leads Europe in key investor metrics, creating a challenging environment for European companies.
As Georgia moves forward with its new law, the implications for public health and corporate accountability remain to be seen. The agricultural landscape is shifting, and the stakes are high. Farmers may benefit in the short term, but the long-term effects on health and the environment are still unfolding. Meanwhile, Denmark’s pharmaceutical sector stands at a crossroads, balancing growth with the threat of tariffs and changing global dynamics.
In this complex web of agriculture and pharmaceuticals, one thing is clear: the future is uncertain. As laws change and economies evolve, the battle between corporate interests and public health will continue. The question remains: who will ultimately pay the price?
Bayer has been in the crosshairs of litigation for years. The company insists glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is safe. Yet, it has stopped using glyphosate in its residential products and set aside a staggering $16 billion to settle ongoing lawsuits. This decision reflects a growing concern over the safety of glyphosate, especially after a Georgia jury awarded nearly $2.1 billion to a man who claimed Roundup caused his cancer.
The new law will not affect existing cases. It’s a shield for the future, a way to stave off the mounting legal costs that threaten Bayer’s agricultural operations. The company continues to use glyphosate in its agricultural products, arguing that without it, weeds could become harder to control, crop yields could decline, and grocery prices could soar. It’s a high-stakes game, where the stakes are not just financial but also health-related.
Bayer is not sitting idle. The company has teamed up with agricultural groups to launch a multi-pronged campaign. They are pushing for legislation at both state and federal levels. They have even turned to the U.S. Supreme Court for intervention. Billboards, newspapers, TV, and radio ads are flooding the airwaves, all touting the importance of glyphosate in modern agriculture. It’s a classic case of corporate resilience in the face of adversity.
But what does this mean for farmers? The law is framed as a victory for them. Brian Naber, president of Bayer’s crop sciences in North America, claims it demonstrates Georgia’s support for farmers who work tirelessly to produce safe and affordable food. Farmers rely on glyphosate for its efficiency. It allows them to control weeds with less tilling, which helps prevent soil erosion. In a world where food security is paramount, the argument for glyphosate is compelling.
However, the question lingers: at what cost? The health implications of glyphosate are still under scrutiny. Critics argue that the law prioritizes corporate interests over public health. They fear that shielding Bayer from lawsuits could embolden the company to continue using glyphosate without fully addressing its potential risks. It’s a precarious balance between agricultural efficiency and consumer safety.
Meanwhile, Denmark is navigating its own economic waters, driven by a booming pharmaceutical sector. The country experienced an “exceptional surge” in drug exports, particularly from companies like Novo Nordisk. However, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts a slowdown in growth. Denmark’s economy grew by 3.7% in 2024 but is expected to moderate to 2.9% this year and further down to 1.8% in 2026.
The looming threat of U.S. tariffs on pharmaceuticals is a concern, but the IMF suggests it won’t significantly impact Denmark’s economy. Most Danish drug products are not produced domestically, limiting the direct effects of potential tariffs. The country has become increasingly reliant on a “merchanting and processing” system, where the value of medicines comes from intellectual property rather than physical production.
Despite the challenges, Denmark’s pharmaceutical industry remains robust. Novo Nordisk’s diabetes and weight loss medications have seen soaring demand, contributing significantly to the country’s GDP. However, the company faced setbacks when the U.S. FDA allowed compounding pharmacies to create copycat versions of its drugs. This move temporarily impacted sales, but with the FDA declaring the shortage over, Novo Nordisk anticipates a rebound.
The broader European pharmaceutical industry faces a more daunting challenge. U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats of tariffs on drug imports loom large. While pharmaceuticals were initially exempt from his tariff regime, the president has since targeted the global industry, demanding lower drug prices. This has created a climate of uncertainty, with CEOs warning of a potential exodus of major players to the U.S. to avoid levies.
The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) has raised alarms about the risks to investment in Europe. They argue that without rapid policy changes, research and development could shift towards the U.S. The U.S. now leads Europe in key investor metrics, creating a challenging environment for European companies.
As Georgia moves forward with its new law, the implications for public health and corporate accountability remain to be seen. The agricultural landscape is shifting, and the stakes are high. Farmers may benefit in the short term, but the long-term effects on health and the environment are still unfolding. Meanwhile, Denmark’s pharmaceutical sector stands at a crossroads, balancing growth with the threat of tariffs and changing global dynamics.
In this complex web of agriculture and pharmaceuticals, one thing is clear: the future is uncertain. As laws change and economies evolve, the battle between corporate interests and public health will continue. The question remains: who will ultimately pay the price?