Carey Gillam on Bayer Glyphosate and Cancer

Last week, investigative journalist Carey Gillam brought to light a significant development in the contentious debate surrounding glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. Her report, published on her Substack, detailed the removal of Daniele Mandrioli, the chief scientist spearheading a comprehensive, independently funded study into glyphosate’s safety, from the prestigious Ramazzini Institute Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center near Bologna, Italy. This dismissal has ignited a firestorm of protest from the scientific community, who allege the move is a direct consequence of pressure from the powerful chemical industry, an assertion vehemently denied by the Institute’s president.

The Ramazzini Institute and Its Independent Research Legacy

The Ramazzini Institute, established in 1971, boasts a long-standing reputation as a global leader in toxicology research. Named after Bernardino Ramazzini, often considered the father of occupational medicine, the institute has conducted extensive animal studies on over 200 substances, with its findings frequently informing regulatory bodies in Europe and the United States. Its commitment to independent science is underscored by its unique funding model for critical studies, often relying on worldwide crowdfunding rather than industry financing, a stark contrast to many other research endeavors. This independence has historically allowed the institute to pursue research without the potential for conflicts of interest, making its findings particularly influential.

Mandrioli, a long-serving and respected figure at the institute, was at the helm of the "Global Glyphosate Study." This ambitious, multi-pronged research initiative was designed to meticulously investigate the effects of glyphosate herbicides, specifically at "current real-world levels" of exposure, across various toxicological endpoints. Unlike many industry-sponsored studies that focus on active ingredients in isolation, the Ramazzini study sought to mimic actual human exposure to commercial formulations of glyphosate, such as Roundup, which contain additional "inert" ingredients that can enhance toxicity. The study’s design and funding structure were specifically chosen to ensure unbiased results, making its findings highly anticipated by public health advocates and regulators worldwide.

The Ouster of Daniele Mandrioli: A Timeline of Controversy

The controversy surrounding Dr. Mandrioli’s departure reached a critical point last week, though the directive for his dismissal came earlier.

• A Few Years Ago: The Ramazzini Institute, following the lead of bodies like the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), initiated its Global Glyphosate Study to examine carcinogenicity and other potential impacts of the herbicide. Dr. Mandrioli, known for his outspoken stance on environmental health, was appointed to direct this critical research.
• Last Summer (Approx. 2025): The institute released an interim report from the Global Glyphosate Study. The findings were significant, strengthening evidence that glyphosate herbicides, even at doses considered "safe" by some regulators, could cause tumors in laboratory animals and potentially contribute to cancers in humans. This followed an earlier study published by Ramazzini that indicated glyphosate could have endocrine and reproductive impacts.
• Late 2025: Dr. Mandrioli was reportedly informed he would need to leave the institution by the end of December 2025.
• January 2026: Dr. Mandrioli concluded his remaining work and officially departed the Ramazzini Institute at the end of January.
• January 21, 2026: Dr. Philip Landrigan, a distinguished epidemiologist and head of the International Scientific Advisory Committee of the Ramazzini Institute, penned a scathing letter to Loretta Masotti, President of the Ramazzini Institute. In his letter, Landrigan explicitly stated, "Dr. Mandrioli has been subjected to vicious attacks by the chemical industry because the findings of the Institute’s independent research have cost these companies money and hurt their bottom line." This letter, and similar expressions of outrage from other scientists associated with Ramazzini, challenged President Masotti’s public assertions that Mandrioli’s termination was unrelated to chemical industry pressure.

The lack of consultation with the research center’s advisory board and other key academics prior to Mandrioli’s dismissal has further fueled concerns, with many arguing that the move threatens the very independence and integrity of the institution and its research.

Industry Pressure and the Battle for Scientific Narrative

The allegations surrounding Dr. Mandrioli’s ouster are not isolated incidents but rather fit into a broader pattern of intense pressure and "vicious attacks" on scientists and institutions that publish findings unfavorable to the chemical industry. Carey Gillam, author of "Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science" and "The Monsanto Papers: Deadly Secrets, Corporate Corruption, and One Man’s Search for Justice," has extensively documented this phenomenon. She currently leads The New Lede, a journalism initiative of the Environmental Working Group, dedicated to uncovering such instances.

Gillam highlighted the striking similarities between Mandrioli’s situation and the experiences of scientists at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). In 2015, IARC, a specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A). This classification, based on extensive review of published scientific literature, triggered an unprecedented backlash from the chemical industry, particularly Monsanto (now Bayer).

IARC scientists were subjected to accusations of publishing "junk science," manipulating results, and intentionally misleading the public. Industry representatives and their allies launched personal attacks, questioning the integrity and credibility of individual researchers. Subpoenas were issued seeking personal emails, attempts were made to pressure the WHO to retract IARC’s findings, and efforts were even directed at a Congressional investigation into IARC, with a House committee eventually holding an investigation that levied "all sorts of insults" at the agency. These actions, Gillam notes, left a "tarnish on IARC because of its glyphosate work," despite the agency standing by its scientific assessment.

Similar pressures have been reported against independent scientists at universities, including those at the University of Washington, who have faced attacks after publishing research related to glyphosate’s health effects. This consistent pattern underscores the significant stakes involved for companies whose multi-billion dollar products are challenged by independent scientific inquiry.

Glyphosate Litigation: A Legal Battleground

The 2015 IARC classification of glyphosate served as a catalyst for an "avalanche of litigation" in the United States. Individuals diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, who attributed their illness to exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup, began filing lawsuits against Monsanto.

• Scale of Litigation: Close to 200,000 lawsuits have been filed in the United States, making it one of the largest mass tort litigations in recent history.
• Bayer’s Acquisition of Monsanto: In 2018, just as the very first Roundup trial was commencing, Bayer AG acquired Monsanto for approximately $63 billion. This acquisition proved to be ill-timed for Bayer, as the company inherited Monsanto’s legal liabilities related to glyphosate.
• Settlements and Verdicts: To date, Bayer has paid out over $11 billion in settlements and jury verdicts. While many cases have settled confidentially, some high-profile jury verdicts have reached staggering amounts, including an initial $289 million verdict in 2018, followed by a $2 billion verdict, and another for $80 million. These large verdicts, though often reduced on appeal, have significantly impacted Bayer’s financial standing and market valuation.
• Remaining Cases: According to Bayer, approximately 50,000 to 60,000 cases remain unresolved out of the initial 175,000 filings.
• Plaintiff Compensation: Settlements vary widely, with some plaintiffs receiving minimal compensation, while others have secured tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a few individuals winning multi-million dollar jury verdicts.

The Supreme Court’s Crucial Intervention

In a significant strategic move to curb its ongoing legal exposure, Bayer has successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal in the Roundup litigation. The core of Bayer’s argument is that state-based "failure to warn" claims should be pre-empted by federal law. Bayer contends that since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary federal regulator for pesticides and does not currently mandate a cancer warning on glyphosate labels, no company should be sued under state law for failing to provide such a warning.

This legal question is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court in the spring, with a decision expected by June. Bayer has communicated to its investors that a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court could be a game-changer, potentially "significantly block[ing] future litigation and put[ting] an end to current litigation" by dismantling the linchpin of most plaintiffs’ cases. Legal experts widely agree that "failure to warn" is the foundational claim in many of these lawsuits; while other claims like design defect, negligence, and breach of warranty exist, they often build upon the premise that consumers were not adequately warned of potential risks.

Legislative Efforts and the "Immunity Shield" Debate

Beyond the courts, Bayer and other agricultural chemical companies have been actively pursuing legislative avenues to create an "immunity shield" against future litigation. This involves lobbying federal and state lawmakers to embed the pre-emption argument into statutory law. These proposed laws would explicitly state that the EPA is the ultimate authority on pesticide labeling, thereby precluding state-level "failure to warn" claims.

Bayer has reportedly achieved success in passing such provisions in at least two states and is actively pushing for similar legislation in others. To bolster these efforts, Bayer has formed the "Modern Ag Alliance," a coalition comprising dozens of agricultural groups across the country. This alliance argues that without such legal protections, glyphosate and other essential pesticides could be jeopardized due to the prohibitive costs of litigation, potentially impacting agricultural productivity and food security. The industry often frames plaintiffs’ attorneys as "exploiting people who are suffering from cancer by bringing claims that have no scientific validity," arguing that companies need protection from "predatory law firms."

Despite significant lobbying efforts, a recent attempt to include such an "immunity shield" provision in a U.S. appropriations bill was successfully stripped out earlier this month. This victory for public health advocates was largely attributed to the "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) movement, a grassroots advocacy group.

The "Make America Healthy Again" Movement and Regulatory Frustrations

The "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) movement, despite its name, has expressed deep frustration with the lack of substantive change under the current administration regarding pesticide and environmental chemical regulations. MAHA activists, some of whom were supporters of the Trump administration, have voiced disappointment with EPA leadership, including figures like Lee Zeldin (as named in the original interview, though this might be a transcription error as Lee Zeldin is a former Congressman, not an EPA chief, perhaps referring to Andrew Wheeler or another EPA official from the prior administration, or a hypothetical figure for illustrative purposes in the interview context), and even former leader Bobby Kennedy Jr.

MAHA’s core grievance is that the EPA continues to prioritize corporate interests over public health. They argue that the agency consistently "bends over backwards to protect these companies and protect their interests and their products." A notable instance of this frustration occurred when the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), under the leadership of figures like Bobby Kennedy Jr., drafted an initial MAHA report last spring. This draft report reportedly named glyphosate and atrazine, highlighting their potential dangers and advocating for more rigorous regulation. However, following intensive lobbying by agrichemical companies on Capitol Hill, the final report released in the fall of last year conspicuously omitted any mention of these pesticides.

In response to these perceived failures, MAHA has launched petitions, including calls for the ouster of certain EPA officials, demonstrating their continued push for stronger environmental and public health protections. The movement observes ongoing dialogue and meetings, but without "anything substantial to rein in these pesticides," their frustrations persist.

Implications for Science, Public Health, and Corporate Accountability

The ouster of Daniele Mandrioli from the Ramazzini Institute, coupled with the ongoing legal and legislative battles surrounding glyphosate, highlights a critical juncture for independent scientific research, public health, and corporate accountability. The controversy underscores the immense pressure faced by scientists whose work challenges powerful industrial interests. It raises fundamental questions about academic freedom, the integrity of research institutions, and the capacity of regulatory bodies to act independently in the face of intense lobbying.

Should the Supreme Court rule in Bayer’s favor on the pre-emption argument, it could significantly alter the landscape of product liability law, potentially shielding corporations from state-level "failure to warn" claims even if scientific evidence of harm emerges later. This would represent a major victory for the chemical industry but a substantial setback for consumer protection and public health advocacy.

Conversely, continued successful litigation and public pressure could force a re-evaluation of glyphosate’s regulatory status and potentially lead to more stringent labeling requirements or even restrictions on its use. The outcome of these intertwined legal, legislative, and scientific battles will undoubtedly shape not only the future of glyphosate but also the broader relationship between science, industry, government, and public trust for years to come. The struggle for an unbiased understanding of environmental chemical impacts remains a global phenomenon, with the Ramazzini Institute’s recent turmoil serving as a potent reminder of its ongoing intensity.