Glyphosate in Beer & Wine: Legal Risks for Consumers

Many people enjoy unwinding with a glass of wine or a cold beer. But what if that drink contained traces of a controversial weedkiller? A startling report from the U.S. PIRG Education Fund brought this concern to the forefront, revealing that many popular beer and wine brands contain glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.

This discovery is more than just unsettling; it opens up a complex web of legal and health-related questions. With glyphosate classified as a “probable carcinogen” and at the center of massive lawsuits, its presence in our beverages raises serious issues about consumer safety, corporate responsibility, and regulatory oversight. This legal analysis explores the implications of these findings and what they mean for consumers.

What is Glyphosate and Why is it in Beer and Wine?

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world. It’s the key ingredient in weedkillers like Roundup, sprayed on millions of acres of crops to eliminate unwanted plants. Its use is particularly common on grains like wheat and barley, as well as in vineyards where grapes are grown. The chemical can be absorbed by the plant, meaning it can’t simply be washed off.

The PIRG study tested 20 different beverages, including popular beer and wine brands. The results were concerning:

19 of the 20 products tested contained detectable levels of glyphosate.
Brands included well-known names like Sutter Home, Beringer, Budweiser, Coors Light, and Miller Lite.
Even some organic brands, where glyphosate use is prohibited, tested positive for the chemical, suggesting contamination from nearby conventional farms.

The highest level found was 51 parts per billion (ppb) in a Sutter Home Merlot. While these levels may seem small, the health implications of long-term, low-dose exposure are at the heart of a major scientific and legal debate.

The Health Risks and Legal Battles Over Glyphosate

The primary concern surrounding glyphosate is its link to cancer. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” This classification was a turning point, providing a scientific basis for thousands of legal claims.

The most common cancer linked to glyphosate exposure is non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Beyond cancer, studies have also suggested potential links between glyphosate and other health issues, such as hormone disruption and developmental problems. One study cited by PIRG found that even one part per trillion—a level thousands of times lower than what was found in the tested beverages—could stimulate the growth of breast cancer cells.

These health risks are not just theoretical. They are the foundation of massive legal battles against Bayer, the company that acquired Monsanto (the original manufacturer of Roundup). Key legal developments include:

Massive Jury Verdicts: In recent years, juries have awarded billions of dollars to plaintiffs who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using Roundup. These verdicts include significant punitive damages, intended to punish the company for its conduct.
Mass Tort Litigation: Over 177,000 people have filed lawsuits against Bayer-Monsanto. To manage this, the company has set aside nearly $16 billion to resolve current and future claims.
“Failure to Warn” Claims: A central legal argument is that Monsanto knew about the potential cancer risks associated with Roundup for years but actively concealed this information from the public and regulators. Plaintiffs argue that had they been properly warned, they would have taken precautions or used different products.

The presence of glyphosate in consumer products like beer and wine extends this legal battleground. It raises the question of whether beverage companies also have a duty to test for contaminants and warn consumers about potential risks.

The Regulatory Puzzle: The EPA’s Stance vs. Global Action

A key part of the legal controversy is the role of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Despite the IARC’s classification and massive jury verdicts, the EPA has maintained that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used according to its label. The agency sets “risk tolerance levels” for pesticide residues in food and drink, and it claims the amounts found in products like beer and wine fall below this threshold.

This stance creates a major legal conflict. Bayer has argued in court that it cannot be punished under state law for failing to add a cancer warning to its label because doing so would conflict with the EPA’s approved federal label. This “federal preemption” argument is a cornerstone of the company’s defense strategy.

Meanwhile, other countries are taking a more cautious approach. Nations like France, Belgium, and the Netherlands have banned or restricted household use of glyphosate. This growing international consensus puts further pressure on U.S. regulators and strengthens the arguments of those seeking to ban or limit its use.

What Are the Legal Implications for Consumers and Beverage Companies?

The discovery of glyphosate in beer and wine opens up potential legal liabilities for more than just Bayer.

Liability for Beverage Companies

While the primary fault lies with the pesticide manufacturer, beverage companies are not necessarily off the hook. They have a legal duty to sell products that are safe for consumption. If it can be shown that a company was aware of glyphosate contamination and failed to take steps to mitigate it or warn consumers, they could face legal action. Potential claims could include:

Breach of Implied Warranty: Consumers have a right to expect that the products they buy are fit for their intended purpose—in this case, safe to drink.
Negligence: If a company fails to exercise reasonable care in sourcing its ingredients or testing its final products, it could be found negligent.
Deceptive Marketing: If a product is marketed as “pure” or “natural” while containing a synthetic herbicide, it could lead to claims of false advertising.

Legal Options for Consumers

For an individual consumer, proving that their health problems were caused by glyphosate in beer or wine would be extremely difficult. The primary victims in the current litigation are those with heavy, direct exposure, such as farmworkers and landscapers. At Walch Law, a lot of the Roundup cases we take on are with workers in this repetitive exposure industries.

However, consumer awareness is a powerful tool. Public pressure can force companies to change their sourcing practices and demand glyphosate-free ingredients from their suppliers. The Brewers Association has already stated that it opposes the use of glyphosate on barley, showing that industry groups can play a role in driving change.

Awareness is the First Step

The PIRG report serves as a critical reminder that our food and beverage supply is deeply interconnected with agricultural practices. The presence of a “probable carcinogen” in everyday products like beer and wine is a serious issue that touches on corporate responsibility, regulatory oversight, and consumer rights.

While the legal battles over Roundup have focused on those with direct occupational exposure, the contamination of consumer goods broadens the scope of the problem. It highlights the need for greater transparency from both pesticide manufacturers and the companies that use ingredients exposed to these chemicals. Until glyphosate is proven safe by independent research, consumers have a right to demand accountability and push for stronger regulations to protect public health.

Questions? We are always here to help at Walch Law.