Authors: Jennifer S. Friedel, Esq. and Henry Davenport, LUVA Fellow Virginia Tech, Dept. of Agricultural and Applied Economics
Court dockets and regulatory desks are no stranger to pesticide legal challenges. Public concern about health and environmental implications, and what seems like an unceasing cycle of litigation, surrounds their use. At the federal and state levels, executive and legislative officials act to implement substantive changes. Meanwhile, the judiciary wades through new and lingering claims by and against their manufacturers while recent major policy developments may give users and manufacturers an upper hand.
Paraquat: Regulatory Reform on the Horizon
In January, a proposed ban on the manufacture, distribution, use, or sale of paraquat dichloride, the herbicide commonly referred to as paraquat was introduced before Virginia’s General Assembly as HB1375.[1] On February 11, Virginia’s House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee unanimously voted to continue HB1375 to the 2027 session, effectively killing the bill.
Used on more than 250,000 acres in Virginia alone, paraquat is a rain-fast non-selective contact herbicide that targets cell membranes, stopping photosynthesis and killing vegetation quickly. Outside of agricultural uses, paraquat is commonly used for vegetation management on infrastructure and fencing. The herbicide is particularly effective in combating increasing glyphosate-resistant vegetation.[2]
Proponents of the bill noted the herbicide’s risk to human health including its potential link to Parkinson’s disease in addition to environmental concerns and the fact that it is currently banned in 70 countries. In 2021, the EPA issued an interim decision on the registration review of paraquat finalizing new, stronger protections intended to reduce exposure.[3] As part of EPA’s ongoing registration review process for paraquat, it continues to evaluate its volatilization potential and anticipates releasing an updated analysis in addition to possible refinements of EPA’s bystander inhalation exposure analysis but to date, has not identified any clear links from labeled uses of paraquat and adverse health, including Parkinson’s disease and cancer.[4]
Glyphosate: Federal Favorability and Legal Setbacks
Meanwhile, on the glyphosate forefront, litigation and policy developments are swiftly rolling in. Since acquiring Monsanto in 2018, Bayer has been steeped in litigation over the safety of its flagship glyphosate-based product, Roundup. In February of this year, Bayer reached a $7.25 billion settlement to compensate current and future users who experience adverse effects from Roundup.[5] The class settlement aims to mitigate current and future Roundup claims alleging non-Hodgkin lymphoma injuries. As of October 2025, almost 200,000 claims have been resolved by Bayer or deemed ineligible.[6]
In January, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear an appeal from Bayer in Durnell v. Monsanto, a case which will determine whether state-based failure to warn claims are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act’s (FIFRA’s) labeling requirements. In Durnell, plaintiffs allege that Monsanto failed to give appropriate warning of Roundup’s health risks, including its alleged propensity to cause cancer. In response, Bayer argues that the EPA’s pesticide labeling requirements under FIFRA preempt such state law claims as such warnings are not federally required.[7] Regardless of the outcome of Durnell, the case is expected to either reinforce or dismantle thousands of pending lawsuits involving state claims related to pesticide and herbicide use. Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court are scheduled for April 27, 2026.
On February 18, 2026, President Trump issued an executive order declaring elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides central to American economic and national security. Elemental phosphorus is both a precursor element to glyphosate herbicides and a critical component of many defense technologies and a key input of weapon-system supply chains. National security concerns regarding these have stepped into the spotlight due to ongoing trade negotiations and instability in the supply chain. The executive order also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to protect domestic glyphosate-based herbicide production, to ensure adequate supply. Domestic production relies on a single U.S. producer of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides which currently does not meet annual demand. The executive order establishes protections for domestic producers aimed at protecting corporate viability of domestic producers. [8]
While Bayer maintains confidence that the end of litigation over glyphosate’s safety is near, paraquat thus far survives emerging policy challenges.
[1] H.B. 1375, 164th Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (Va. 2026).
[2] Owens, Brian. Resistance to glyphosate on the rise among weeds. Chem. Inst. Can. (May 2024), https://www.cheminst.ca/magazine/article/resistance-to-glyphosate-on-the-rise-among-weeds/ (accessed February 27, 2026).
[3] U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Paraquat Dichloride, https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/paraquat-dichloride (accessed February 27, 2026).
[4] Id.
[5] Bayer AG, Monsanto announces Roundup™ class settlement agreement to resolve current and future claims. Bayer Global, https://www.bayer.com/media/en-us/monsanto-announces-roundup-class-settlement-agreement-to-resolve-current-and-future-claims/ (accessed February 27, 2026).
[6] Bayer AG, Managing the Roundup™ Litigation, Bayer Global, https://www.bayer.com/en/managing-the-roundup-litigation (accessed February 27, 2026).
[7] Id.
[8] Exec. Order No. 14387, 91 FR 8703 (2026).
Friedel, Jennifer S., and Henry Davenport. “Paraquat and Glyphosate: An Update and Outlook.” Southern Ag Today 6(10.5). March 6, 2026. Permalink
