FREE Case Evaluation: 1-888-887-3117
Who makes Roundup has become one of the most searched questions as this popular weed killer faces mounting legal challenges and health concerns. The answer involves a complex corporate history that has left thousands of people seeking justice.
Quick Answer:
The herbicide that once promised to revolutionize farming has instead become the center of one of the largest mass tort cases in history. With over 165,000 claims filed against Bayer and billions paid in settlements, understanding who makes Roundup is crucial for anyone who may have been harmed by this product.
Bayer currently produces about 40% of the world's glyphosate - Roundup's active ingredient - and brought in $2.8 billion from glyphosate sales last year alone. Yet the company faces $2 billion to $3 billion in annual losses due to ongoing litigation, leading Bayer's CEO to warn that Roundup production might stop within "months, not years."
From Pennsylvania juries awarding $2.25 billion verdicts to Bayer's desperate attempts to halt production, this corporate saga affects millions of consumers, farmers, and workers who trusted that Roundup was safe.
I'm Tim Burd, founder of Justice Hero, and through my work helping people steer complex legal situations involving corporate wrongdoing, I've seen how understanding who makes Roundup can be the first step toward seeking justice. My experience with mass tort litigation has shown me that corporate accountability often begins with knowing exactly which company bears responsibility for harm.
Quick who makes roundup definitions:
The story of who makes Roundup begins not with today's courtroom battles, but with a moment of scientific findy that would reshape agriculture forever. Understanding Roundup's origins helps us trace the responsibility that now lies with its current owner.
Back in 1970, a Monsanto chemist named John E. Franz was working with a compound that had a tongue-twisting name: N-phosphonomethylglycine. What he finded would change farming - and eventually spark one of the biggest legal battles in corporate history.
Franz realized this compound, which we now call glyphosate, could kill weeds like nothing farmers had seen before. It was a non-selective herbicide, meaning it didn't pick favorites - it killed virtually any plant it touched. By 1974, Monsanto had turned this findy into a commercial product they called Roundup.
The Monsanto Company wasn't new to controversial chemicals. Founded in 1901, they had produced everything from the artificial sweetener saccharin to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. But glyphosate would become their most profitable - and most problematic - creation.
What made Roundup special wasn't just that it killed weeds effectively. It seemed to break down in soil relatively quickly, and Monsanto marketed it as safer than many alternatives. Farmers acceptd it, and sales soared.
Here's where Monsanto's strategy gets interesting - and where understanding who makes Roundup becomes crucial for anyone affected by the product.
When Monsanto's patent on glyphosate expired in 2000, other companies could suddenly make generic versions. Most companies would have seen their profits disappear. But Monsanto had been preparing for this moment since 1996 with a brilliant - some would say devious - plan.
They had developed Roundup Ready seeds. These were genetically modified crops - soybeans, corn, and cotton - that could survive being sprayed with Roundup. Farmers could now spray the herbicide directly over their fields, killing weeds while leaving their valuable crops untouched.
This wasn't just convenient - it was revolutionary. Farmers could control weeds more easily than ever before. The catch? They had to buy both Monsanto's seeds and Monsanto's herbicide to make the system work.
The numbers tell the story of Roundup's incredible success. By 2009, products related to Roundup and Roundup Ready crops represented about half of Monsanto's gross margin. The company was making billions from this herbicide-seed combination.
By 2018, over 80% of major crops in America - including corn, soybeans, cotton, sugar beets, and canola - were glyphosate-tolerant varieties. Roundup had become so dominant that it was practically impossible to farm without it.
This market dominance is why the question of who makes Roundup matters so much today. When Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018, they didn't just acquire a profitable product - they inherited responsibility for decades of health claims and the legal consequences that followed.
The question of who makes Roundup took a dramatic turn in 2018, reshaping the entire agricultural chemical landscape in ways no one could have predicted.
When German pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG announced its plan to acquire Monsanto, the business world took notice. But when the deal closed in June 2018 for a staggering $63 billion, it became clear this wasn't just another corporate merger – it was a seismic shift that would change everything.
The merger created an agricultural powerhouse by combining Bayer's existing crop protection business with Monsanto's seed and herbicide empire. On paper, it looked brilliant. In reality, Bayer had just inherited what would become one of the costliest legal nightmares in corporate history.
The first casualty was the Monsanto name itself. After decades of controversy, Bayer quickly retired the brand that had become synonymous with agricultural chemicals and legal battles. However, they kept the Roundup brand – a decision that would prove both profitable and problematic.
Bayer's stock price tells the story of this acquisition better than any financial report. The company's market value plummeted over 60% in the ten months following the merger, largely due to the avalanche of lawsuits that came with their new weed killer.
Today, when someone asks who makes Roundup, the answer is definitively Bayer AG. Every bottle of Roundup produced, every gallon sold to farmers, and every legal liability that comes with it now falls under Bayer's responsibility through their Crop Science division.
This isn't a small operation we're talking about. Bayer currently produces approximately 40% of the world's glyphosate and brought in $2.8 billion from glyphosate sales last year alone. Those numbers help explain why Bayer continues to fight so hard to defend Roundup's safety, even as legal costs mount into the billions.
The company manufactures Roundup products for two main markets: agricultural products for farmers and residential products for everyday consumers. However, the residential market may be changing soon, as Bayer has hinted at potentially halting production for home use due to ongoing litigation pressures.
Despite facing what seems like an endless stream of lawsuits, Bayer maintains its position that Roundup is safe when used as directed. The company consistently denies that their products cause cancer, a stance they've maintained even after some of the largest jury verdicts in legal history. You can see their current position on litigation at Bayer's statement on litigation.
The irony isn't lost on anyone familiar with this story: Bayer paid $63 billion to acquire a product that now costs them $2 billion to $3 billion annually in legal losses. It's a reminder that in corporate acquisitions, sometimes the biggest deals come with the biggest risks.
Understanding who makes Roundup today means struggling with the scientific debates and legal battles that have transformed this once-celebrated herbicide into one of the most controversial products in modern history.
Glyphosate sits at the center of every Roundup controversy. This broad-spectrum, systemic herbicide doesn't just kill weeds on contact – it travels throughout the entire plant system after being absorbed through leaves, reaching roots and killing plants from the inside out.
The science behind glyphosate seems straightforward. It works by blocking the shikimate pathway, a biological process plants need to produce essential amino acids. Without these building blocks, plants simply can't survive. Since humans and animals don't have this pathway, manufacturers have long argued that glyphosate poses no threat to us.
But here's where things get complicated. Roundup isn't just glyphosate. The commercial formulations include surfactants like polyoxyethylene tallow amine (POEA) that help the active ingredient penetrate plant surfaces more effectively. Critics argue these so-called "inert" ingredients can actually make the overall product more toxic to humans and the environment than glyphosate alone.
The cancer connection has become the defining issue for anyone asking who makes Roundup and why it matters. The controversy exploded in 2015 when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, dropped a bombshell classification.
The IARC labeled glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A), citing strong evidence of DNA damage and oxidative stress in exposed humans. You can read the full details in their Group 2A carcinogen classification. This classification sent shockwaves through the agricultural world and opened the floodgates for lawsuits.
Yet other major regulatory bodies reached different conclusions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and European Commission maintain that glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" when used as labeled. This scientific divide continues to fuel heated debates in courtrooms and research institutions worldwide.
Independent research has added more troubling evidence. A University of Washington study published in Mutation Research found a 41% higher risk of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma among agricultural workers with heavy glyphosate exposure. The American Cancer Society has identified certain herbicide and insecticide chemicals as risk factors for lymphoma.
Perhaps most heartbreaking is the timing factor. It can take up to 15 years after Roundup exposure for health impacts to appear, making it incredibly difficult for people to connect their illness to the product until much later in life.
The conflicting science has played out dramatically in American courtrooms, creating a massive wave of mass tort litigation that has cost Bayer billions and continues to grow. Tens of thousands of people diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma have sued the company who makes Roundup, claiming the herbicide caused their cancer and that manufacturers failed to warn them about the risks.
Several landmark cases have shaped this legal landscape. Dewayne Johnson, a former school groundskeeper, became the first plaintiff to take his case to trial in 2018. A California jury awarded him $289 million after finding Monsanto liable, though the amount was later reduced to $21 million on appeal.
Edwin Hardeman's 2019 federal trial resulted in an $80 million verdict, later reduced to $26 million. Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a California couple who both developed Non-Hodgkin lymphoma after decades of Roundup use, were initially awarded $2 billion before it was reduced to $87 million.
The most recent blockbuster verdict came in January 2024 when John McKivison won a staggering $2.25 billion judgment against Bayer in Pennsylvania court, including $2 billion in punitive damages. The plaintiff's attorneys called this verdict a "condemnation of 50 years of misconduct" by the manufacturer.
These multi-million and multi-billion dollar verdicts reflect juries' belief that Roundup is a defective, cancer-causing product and that the manufacturer was negligent in failing to warn users about its dangers.
Facing this tsunami of litigation, Bayer has already paid out over $10 billion in settlements to thousands of cancer patients. As of 2023, approximately 165,000 claims have been filed against Bayer, with more than 50,000 still pending. While Bayer has won 10 out of 15 cases that have gone to trial as of December 2023, the sheer volume and magnitude of the losses continue to create enormous financial pressure on the company.
When you're dealing with billions in lawsuits and a product that's sparked global controversy, defending your position becomes a delicate dance between science, law, and public perception. That's exactly where Bayer finds itself as the company who makes Roundup today.
Despite facing over 165,000 claims and paying out more than $10 billion in settlements, Bayer hasn't backed down from defending Roundup. The company maintains an unwavering position: Roundup products can be used safely and are not carcinogenic.
This isn't just corporate stubbornness talking. Bayer points to decades of scientific studies and regulatory approvals as the foundation of their defense. They argue that expert regulators worldwide have consistently found glyphosate safe when used as directed.
But here's where things get interesting - and a bit heated. Bayer claims the litigation surge isn't driven by genuine health concerns, but rather by what they call "over $100 million dollars in expansive marketing and TV ads by the litigation industry to recruit and accumulate plaintiffs." It's a bold accusation that essentially suggests the legal battles are more about money than science.
From Bayer's perspective, this isn't just about defending a product - it's about protecting modern agriculture. They emphasize that advanced crop protection products like glyphosate are essential for farmers to control weeds, maintain crop yields, and secure their livelihoods. Without these tools, they warn, food production would suffer dramatically.
The company also expresses confidence in their ability to appeal court decisions and "significantly reduce unconstitutionally excessive damage awards." While they acknowledge sympathy for plaintiffs, they remain committed to their scientific position and agricultural mission.
Here's where the story gets complicated - and why understanding who makes Roundup matters so much for regulatory accountability. The official stance on glyphosate safety varies dramatically depending on which regulatory body you're asking.
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been Bayer's strongest ally. The EPA consistently maintains that glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" when used as labeled. Their comprehensive 2020 assessment reaffirmed this position, directly contradicting the IARC's cancer classification. You can review their detailed findings at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) findings.
The European Commission tells a similar story. In November 2023, EU member states voted to renew glyphosate approval for another 10 years, reflecting their continued assessment of its safety. The European Commission assessment supports this regulatory confidence in glyphosate's safety profile.
But here's where things get messy. Despite these major regulatory approvals, over a dozen countries and numerous local governments have taken a completely different approach. They've either banned or severely restricted glyphosate use, adopting what experts call a "precautionary approach" to public health and environmental concerns.
This regulatory patchwork creates a confusing landscape for consumers and adds another layer of complexity to the legal battles. In the U.S., courts are even split on whether federal law preempts state-level failure-to-warn claims - a critical issue that Bayer has tried to bring before the Supreme Court for definitive resolution.
The bottom line? While major regulatory bodies support glyphosate's safety, the shadow of the IARC classification and ongoing litigation continues to influence policy decisions worldwide, creating an uncertain future for the company who makes Roundup.
The question of who makes roundup has become deeply intertwined with an equally pressing question: how much longer will this controversial herbicide remain on the market? The mounting legal pressures and public scrutiny have forced Bayer into a corner, fundamentally reshaping the future of America's most widely used weed killer.
The financial toll of Roundup litigation has reached a breaking point for Bayer. CEO Bill Anderson delivered a stark warning that caught the agricultural world off guard: the company may stop making Roundup within "months, not years" if they can't secure court protection from ongoing lawsuits. This isn't corporate posturing – it's a reflection of the crushing reality that Roundup-related litigation expenses now exceed Bayer's entire agriculture research and development budget, creating staggering annual losses of $2 billion to $3 billion.
Bayer's response has been strategic and multifaceted. In 2023, they made the significant decision to phase out residential glyphosate sales, removing Roundup from store shelves where everyday consumers shop. However, Bayer was careful to clarify this move was "exclusively geared at managing litigation risk and not because of any safety concerns." This means while you might find glyphosate-free versions of Roundup in your local garden center, the commercial agricultural formulations containing glyphosate remain available to farmers.
The company has also launched an aggressive legal and lobbying campaign as part of their "five-point litigation plan." They're actively working with state governments to pass legislation that could limit their liability, with Georgia and North Dakota already enacting pesticide labeling laws that Bayer hopes will set a national precedent. Most significantly, Bayer has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether federal regulations should override the thousands of state lawsuits alleging Roundup causes cancer – a legal gambit that could either end their litigation nightmare or cement their liability for years to come. You can read more about this potential production halt: Potential halt of production for residential market.
Whether you're concerned about glyphosate's potential health risks or simply want more environmentally friendly options, the good news is that effective alternatives exist. These methods might require a bit more effort than spraying Roundup, but they offer peace of mind and often benefit your garden's overall health.
Mulching remains one of the most effective and beneficial approaches to weed control. By applying wood chips, straw, or compost around your plants, you're not just blocking sunlight that weeds need to germinate – you're also enriching your soil as the organic matter breaks down. It's a win-win that many professional landscapers swear by.
For smaller areas, manual weeding – the old-fashioned way – can be surprisingly satisfying and effective. The key is catching weeds when they're young, before their root systems become established. A good pair of gardening gloves and a quality weeding tool make this task much more manageable than you might expect.
Horticultural vinegar offers a chemical-free contact herbicide option, but it's important to understand that this isn't your kitchen vinegar. These products contain 10-20% acetic acid (compared to household vinegar's 5%) and can effectively scorch weed foliage. Just remember that it's non-selective – it will harm desirable plants too – and the higher acidity can irritate skin and eyes.
Corn gluten meal works as a natural pre-emergent herbicide, preventing weed seeds from germinating while providing nitrogen to your existing plants. It's particularly effective against broadleaf weeds and completely safe for pets and children. The timing matters though – apply it before weeds germinate for best results.
For weeds growing in driveways, walkways, or other hardscapes, boiling water can be remarkably effective. It instantly kills plant tissue by rupturing cell walls. Similarly, flame weeding using a propane torch designed for gardening can quickly eliminate weeds on hard surfaces, though extreme caution is needed to prevent fires.
Iron-based herbicides offer a selective approach that kills broadleaf weeds like dandelions and clover without harming your grass. These products work by causing iron overload in susceptible plants, making them an excellent choice for lawn care.
When shopping for commercial alternatives, look for products approved by the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI), which certifies that products meet federal organic standards. Even seemingly harmless home remedies like salt or dish soap mixtures can be more toxic than glyphosate if ingested, so always exercise caution and follow safety guidelines regardless of what you choose.
At Justice Hero, we believe knowledge empowers better choices. Understanding your options helps you make decisions that protect both your family's health and your property's appearance.
The story of who makes Roundup reads like a corporate thriller - complete with scientific breakthroughs, billion-dollar deals, and courtroom drama that continues to unfold. What started as Monsanto's weed killer in 1974 has become one of the most contentious products in modern history, now owned by Bayer following their massive $63 billion acquisition.
This isn't just a tale of changing corporate ownership. It's a story that affects millions of people who trusted that the herbicide they were using was safe. From farmers who relied on it for their livelihoods to homeowners who simply wanted weed-free lawns, many now find themselves facing devastating health consequences they never saw coming.
Bayer's inheritance of Monsanto came with more than just a profitable product line - it came with over 165,000 legal claims and billions in settlement costs. The company's own CEO now warns that Roundup production might halt within "months, not years," a stunning admission for a product that generates $2.8 billion in annual sales.
The scientific debate continues to rage, with regulatory agencies like the EPA maintaining glyphosate's safety while the World Health Organization's cancer research arm classified it as "probably carcinogenic." Meanwhile, juries across America have consistently sided with plaintiffs, awarding verdicts as high as $2.25 billion to individuals who developed Non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup.
For those affected by this product, understanding who makes Roundup today - and who bears responsibility for its safety - isn't just academic. It's about accountability and justice. The corporate name may have changed from Monsanto to Bayer, but the fundamental questions about product safety and corporate responsibility remain the same.
At Justice Hero, we've seen how complex corporate histories can make it challenging for people to understand their legal rights. The Roundup story demonstrates why it's crucial to stay informed about the products we use and the companies behind them. If you believe you have been affected by products like Roundup, understanding your legal options is a critical step toward seeking the justice you deserve.
The final chapter of this story is still being written in courtrooms across the country, but one thing is clear: the question of who makes Roundup will forever be tied to one of the largest mass tort cases in legal history.
