Bayer Seeks Glyphosate Import Duties, Angering Farmers

Progressive Farmer’s Chris Clayton reported that “farm groups that only days ago celebrated Bayer’s U.S. Supreme Court victory over glyphosate labeling now are accusing the company of abandoning farmers after Monsanto asked federal trade officials to impose steep duties on glyphosate imports from China.”

“Monsanto, which is now owned by Bayer Crop Science and its subsidiary, Ruevon LLC, filed a petition with the International Trade Commission (ITC), alleging glyphosate from China is being sold in the U.S. below fair-market value,” Clayton reported. “Monsanto asked the ITC to issue antidumping duties on Chinese glyphosate, ranging from 68.9% to 446.47%. Bayer/Monsanto is the only U.S. manufacturer of glyphosate and produces roughly 60% of glyphosate sold in the U.S.”

“Farm groups denounced the petition, pointing out glyphosate is one of the most heavily used herbicides in row-crop production,” Clayton reported. “Jed Bower, an Ohio farmer and president of the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), told DTN the goodwill built up over years of supporting glyphosate use and EPA science in court cases was apparently quickly forgotten by Bayer/Monsanto.”

“‘We went to bat for them for so long in those court cases, supporting them and celebrated even last week with the Supreme Court,’ Bower said,” according to Clayton’s reporting. “‘We were right there, hand-in-hand with them, making our case as farmers about how great the product has been for us over the decades and how vital it is to the American farmer to have access. And then they literally win the case and just completely blow us off in one of our worst crises in, well, definitely in my farming career.'”

Reuter’s Renee Hickman reported that “grain and ​soybean growers have struggled ​financially for the ⁠past four years partly due to high costs for inputs including chemicals, seed and fertilizer. ‘Actions to impose import taxes on those products limit market competition, ​threaten cost spikes, and ultimately hurt U.S. farmers,’ the American Soybean Association ​said in ⁠a statement.”

What Does the Petition Say?

AgBull Trading’s Jim Wiesemeyer wrote that “the petition’s core argument is that Chinese-produced glyphosate salts and glyphosate technical are imported into the U.S., then converted by U.S. formulators into generic herbicide products sold through distributors and retailers to farmers. The petition says there is no other significant U.S. market for those imported salts and technical material beyond herbicide formulation, and that generic Chinese-based formulations compete directly with U.S.-produced glyphosate formulations.”

“The public version shows the petitioners using October 2025 through March 2026 import data under HTS 2931.49.00.20 to calculate a Chinese glyphosate salt average unit value of $2.201 per kilogram, based on $136.9 million in customs value and 62.2 million kilograms of imports,” Wiesemeyer wrote. “The petitioners allege dumping margins for Chinese IPA salts ranging from 68.90% to 446.47%, though those are petition allegations, not final agency determinations.”

“That is where the legal case runs into the farm economy problem. Glyphosate is not a niche chemical; it is a basic weed-control tool across corn, soybean, wheat, fallow and no-till systems,” Wiesemeyer wrote. “Duties aimed at Chinese imports would land first in the import and formulation chain, but farm groups argue they would ultimately be passed through to growers in higher product prices or reduced generic competition. The risk is especially sensitive because farmers are already dealing with weak commodity prices, elevated financing costs and a string of disputes over fertilizer and crop-chemical trade barriers.”

Petition Now Heads to International Trade Commission for Review

The American Ag Network’s Jesse Allen reported that “the dispute puts farm groups in an uncomfortable position. NCGA and other associations stood with Bayer earlier this year in an amicus brief supporting the company in Monsanto v. Durnell, the Supreme Court case over pesticide-labeling preemption that Bayer ultimately won last week. Now those same groups are warning that Bayer’s trade case threatens the affordability and supply of the very product they helped Bayer keep on the market.”

“That tension may not matter much procedurally. Antidumping and countervailing duty law turns on injury to domestic producers and evidence of unfair pricing or subsidies — not on whether downstream farmers can absorb higher costs. The ITC’s ruling in Corteva’s favor on 2,4-D, despite similar grower objections, suggests farm-economy impact carries limited legal weight in these proceedings,” Allen reported. “The case now moves to Commerce and the ITC for review. If the agencies proceed with investigations, expect farm groups to keep pressing the cost argument publicly even as the legal proceeding turns on narrower trade-law questions.”