News Archive

This where you can view previous year's articles posted by the ACA

2025 Archive

Glyphosate Duty Petitions Withdrawn, Easing Immediate Cost Concerns

Ruveon has withdrawn its petitions seeking antidumping and countervailing duties on glyphosate imported from China, reversing course after major farm organizations raised concerns about affordability and access.

Monsanto Company and Ruveon filed the petitions with the U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. International Trade Commission on June 30. The companies argued that duties were needed to address unfairly priced and subsidized Chinese imports while protecting domestic glyphosate production.

Farm groups opposed the petitions, warning that additional duties could increase the cost of a widely used crop-protection product when growers are already facing tight margins and elevated production expenses.

Ruveon withdrew the petitions on July 17. The American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association and National Association of Wheat Growers welcomed the decision.

According to the American Soybean Association, Ruveon is a wholly owned Bayer subsidiary and produces approximately 60 percent of the glyphosate sold in the United States. Bayer is also the country’s only domestic glyphosate manufacturer.

What the Withdrawal Changes

According to AgWeb, a proposed pricing framework tied to receiving trade relief will not move forward. Ruveon instead plans to continue its current pricing model, which is tied to generic glyphosate prices.

The withdrawal does not guarantee that glyphosate prices will decrease. It means that duties resulting from these petitions will not increase the cost of Chinese imports or place additional upward pressure on the broader market.

Concerns involving imported supply, domestic manufacturing and future price volatility remain unresolved.

Why Glyphosate Availability Has Wider Consequences

A recent University of Illinois analysis helps illustrate the economic importance of glyphosate access. Researchers estimate that a hypothetical Illinois ban could cost the state’s corn and soybean growers between $300 million and $609 million annually through higher weed-control costs and potential yield losses.

The study examines a ban—not import duties—so its estimates should not be applied directly to Ruveon’s petitions. It does, however, show how changes in glyphosate availability or cost can affect herbicide decisions, field-management practices and farm revenue.

Those consequences may also become part of a claim investigation. When a producer attributes a loss to a change in herbicide cost or availability, records must establish what management decision changed and whether that change contributed to reduced weed control, crop damage or lost production.

Supreme Court Ruling Addresses Pesticide Labeling Claims

Glyphosate also remains in the legal spotlight following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell.

The Court ruled that federal pesticide law preempted a Missouri failure-to-warn claim that would have required a cancer warning different from the label approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The decision does not eliminate every pesticide-related claim. Allegations involving drift, application error, off-target crop damage or product performance may involve different legal and factual questions.

Identifying the claim theory early remains important. Product labels, application records, weather information, equipment records, field photographs and production histories can help separate a labeling dispute from an application problem or a claimed economic loss.

Ruveon’s withdrawal removes an immediate trade-related concern for growers. At the same time, the surrounding developments demonstrate why glyphosate continues to affect farm economics, crop-management decisions and several distinct areas of agricultural liability.