**
In an alarming revelation, internal records have surfaced indicating that top officials from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a meeting with Bayer’s CEO, Bill Anderson, last year to deliberate on legal strategies regarding the controversial glyphosate herbicide. This discussion, taking place mere months before significant policy shifts in favour of the company, raises serious questions about the integrity of regulatory processes and the prioritisation of corporate interests over public health.
Meeting of Influence
On 17 June 2025, Anderson, alongside other Bayer executives, met with EPA officials, including Lee Zeldin, the agency’s administrator, and Nancy Beck, a former senior director at the American Chemistry Council. The agenda? To discuss ongoing litigation concerning glyphosate, specifically targeting the mounting legal challenges claiming that the chemical has caused cancer in numerous users. The herbicide, widely known as Roundup, has been at the centre of thousands of lawsuits, with plaintiffs alleging that Bayer has failed to adequately warn consumers about its potential dangers.
This meeting occurred just days before the Supreme Court sought input from the Trump administration regarding Bayer’s ongoing legal battles. Bayer’s strategy hinges on a legal argument that if the EPA does not mandate cancer warnings for glyphosate products, the company should not be held liable for any claims regarding cancer risks. While one appellate court sided with Bayer on this matter, many others have rejected this preemption argument, including the Biden administration’s solicitor general.
Corporate Influence Over Public Health
Nathan Donley, the environmental health science director for the Center for Biological Diversity, who obtained the meeting records through a Freedom of Information Act request, commented on the implications of such high-level meetings. “It’s becoming abundantly clear that the political appointees at the EPA are more invested in protecting pesticide company profits than the health of Americans,” he stated. The access that corporate leaders like Anderson have to regulatory officials starkly contrasts with the barriers faced by everyday citizens whose health may be at risk.
Following the June meeting, the Trump administration’s support for Bayer intensified. In December 2025, the solicitor general appointed by Trump urged the Supreme Court to hear Bayer’s case, which they subsequently agreed to do, with a hearing set for 27 April 2026. Further backing came in February 2026, when the White House invoked the Defense Production Act to safeguard glyphosate production and provide immunity for manufacturers like Bayer.
A Call for Transparency and Accountability
Bayer has described its meeting with the EPA as a routine part of the regulatory process, asserting that it has been transparent about its litigation stance. However, this narrative fails to address the broader implications of such corporate engagement in regulatory discussions. Legal experts have voiced their concerns, with Whitney Di Bona, a consumer safety advocate, stating, “It’s concerning that the CEO of a major pesticide company can have private meetings with the EPA to talk about limiting the company’s liability.” The question arises: do ordinary citizens harmed by these products receive similar opportunities to voice their concerns?
The disparity in access to regulatory discussions highlights a troubling pattern, as Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard professor studying corporate influence, noted that industry leaders often have privileged access to government officials, while the voices of affected individuals remain unheard.
Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America, echoed these sentiments, remarking that “coercion by chemical companies on our regulatory agencies is nothing new.” Despite her organisation’s attempts to engage with the EPA on pesticide regulations, little tangible change has followed.
Why it Matters
This case illustrates a critical intersection of corporate power and public health, revealing troubling dynamics within regulatory agencies. The apparent prioritisation of Bayer’s interests over those of consumers not only undermines public trust but also raises significant ethical concerns about the influence of money in policy-making. As litigation against Bayer continues, it is imperative that the conversation shifts from corporate interests to the health and safety of the public, ensuring that regulatory bodies serve as protectors rather than facilitators of corporate profit. The implications of this meeting extend beyond glyphosate, setting a dangerous precedent for how corporations influence environmental and health policies in the future.
