Supreme Court sides with Monsanto + rising concerns over seed patents

͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­͏   ­

Supreme Court rules in Monsanto’s favor in pesticide labeling case

What happened: The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Monsanto v. Durnell that federal pesticide labeling law preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims based on EPA-approved pesticide labels. The decision dramatically limits the ability of individuals to sue pesticide manufacturers under state law for failing to include health warnings beyond those required by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Source: Supreme Court decision, CBS, The Hill

Why it matters: The ruling makes it significantly more difficult for farmers, farmworkers, and others exposed to pesticides to hold manufacturers accountable through one of the primary legal avenues used in Roundup litigation. By giving greater weight to EPA-approved labels than to state tort law, the Court has narrowed the ability of injured individuals to seek damages when they believe pesticide warnings were inadequate.

Bayer argued that this legal protection was necessary to preserve farmers’ access to important crop protection products. However, as Farm Action and other organizations argued before the Court, farmers have access to a range of crop protection tools and do not depend on Bayer’s products alone. Limiting corporate liability is not necessary to ensure farmers can manage weeds effectively.

The decision also comes after the Trump administration intervened in support of Bayer. In December, a Trump-appointed solicitor general urged the court to take up the case, and later the administration filed a brief in Bayer’s favor that argued federal law preempts state lawsuits. Those actions followed extensive lobbying efforts by Bayer, raising concerns about the company’s influence over federal regulators.

The decision is likely to have consequences beyond Roundup, potentially making it more difficult to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable when EPA-approved labels are alleged to have failed to adequately warn users of product risks. As Congress simultaneously considers legislation that would further shield pesticide companies from liability, the ruling underscores the growing importance of preserving meaningful avenues for accountability.

The hidden costs of concentrated control over seeds

What happened: Researchers examining the seed industry are highlighting how patents on genetically engineered seeds have helped a small number of corporations gain significant control over the market, limiting competition and contributing to rising costs for farmers. Patent protections allow companies to restrict seed saving and can make it more difficult for independent breeders and researchers to access genetic material, concentrating control over seed genetics in the hands of a few dominant firms.

The economic impacts have been significant. The price of genetically engineered seeds has increased 463% since 1990, while the prices farmers receive for their crops have risen just 56% over the same period. Research published in 2025 also found that seed companies capture a portion of taxpayer-funded farm support through raising their prices in response to farm subsidy increases, with seed prices rising by 0.5% for every 1% increase in farm subsidies. Meanwhile, in a recent court filing in Corteva Agriscience LLC v. Inari Agriculture Inc., the DOJ stated that seed patents are obstructing competition and research in agriculture, signaling growing scrutiny of how intellectual property protections are being used in the seed industry.

Source: The Conversation

Why it matters: Today, just two companies control more than 70% of U.S. corn and soybean seed sales, while the four largest cottonseed companies control nearly 94% of that market. That level of concentration gives a handful of firms enormous influence over seed genetics, pricing, and access to the technologies farmers rely on to produce crops. Patents have played a central role in that process. By restricting seed saving and limiting the ability of independent breeders and researchers to work with patented genetics, dominant companies have reduced competition and strengthened their control over the marketplace.

The consequences extend well beyond higher seed prices. Research suggests that dominant seed companies are able to capture a share of taxpayer-funded farm support by increasing prices when subsidies rise, meaning public dollars intended to help farmers can instead bolster corporate profits. At the same time, the Department of Justice has argued that seed patents are being used in ways that obstruct competition and agricultural research, underscoring growing concern that intellectual property rights are serving not only to reward innovation but also to protect entrenched market power.

The broader question is whether the current seed system is producing the kind of innovation farmers actually need. When a small number of companies control access to critical genetics, they also shape which traits are developed, who can conduct research, and ultimately what choices farmers have in the field. Over time, that concentration can limit—not expand—the diversity and resilience of the nation’s seed supply.

Thanks for reading the Farm Action Policy Feed! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.