Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Pesticides and agrochemicals · United States · 2015–2026

Dicamba drift (Bader Farms) and EPA re-registration

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured. Disputed
What the record lacks: 2 not disclosed · 1 insufficient · 1 not measured · 2 disputed See the gaps
Accounts of the harm differ
Who was responsible for dicamba drift damage?
  • Courts Jury (2020) and 8th Circuit: Found Monsanto and BASF liable; compensatory award of USD 15 million upheld, punitive damages overturned on appeal.
  • Company or project Bayer: Did not admit crime or liability; attributed the damage to illegal application by third parties.

A peach grower, Bader Farms, won a jury verdict over dicamba drift from Monsanto and BASF products. Courts vacated the over-the-top dicamba registration in 2020 and 2024, and the EPA re-registered it in February 2026.

Up to USD 400 millionBayer provision for 2015-2020 dicamba drift damage
Set aside in 2020; about USD 300 million was to go to farmers (sources reviewed figures).

Status As of February 2026: EPA re-registered over-the-top dicamba for 2026 and 2027; the new registration was challenged in court; no ruling found.

What?
Drift from dicamba sprayed on dicamba-tolerant crops damaged neighbouring farms; a jury found the sellers liable and the product's registration was vacated twice and then re-issued.
Where?
United States.
When?
2015-2026. SDSU Extension
Who?
Gained
  • Monsanto (Bayer) and BASF — Sold dicamba and Xtend seed; platform revenue is not published; Xtend soybeans on 44 million acres in 2018.
Lost
  • Bader Farms — Won a USD 15 million compensatory award, upheld on appeal.
Harmed
  • Neighbouring farms — 3.6 million acres damaged in 2017; 3,101 drift complaints.
Why?
Not established beyond the jury finding of joint venture and conspiracy.
How?
Xtend seed was sold in 2015 before an approved over-the-top dicamba existed; drift followed.
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

Monsanto (now Bayer) and BASF sold the herbicide dicamba and dicamba-tolerant Xtend seed. Xtend seed went on sale in 2015, when no approved dicamba existed for spraying over the crop. In the Bader Farms case the company's agronomy lead accepted that the companies had anticipated drift.

For 2017 Monsanto forecast 2,765 drift complaints; 3,101 came. It raised its complaint budget from USD 2.4 million to USD 6.5 million. The complaint form was designed to collect data to defend Monsanto, and the company had a no-settlement policy. Universities were barred by contract from testing the volatility of XtendiMax. In a farmer survey, 24% said they planted dicamba-tolerant soybeans only to protect themselves from a neighbour's spraying. In 2017, 3.6 million acres were damaged.

In 2020 a jury found that Monsanto and BASF had agreed to a joint venture and conspiracy over the drift. On appeal the 8th Circuit upheld liability and the USD 15 million compensatory award; the USD 250 million punitive award was overturned, and a retrial on punitive damages was sought. Bayer's CEO said the company did not admit crime or liability and attributed the damage to illegal application by third parties.

Courts vacated the dicamba registration twice, in 2020 and 2024. In 2020 Bayer set aside up to USD 400 million for 2015-2020 drift damage, about USD 300 million of it for farmers, with payment conditioned on yield records and evidence of dicamba. The EPA re-registered dicamba in February 2026 for 2026 and 2027, and the new registration was also challenged in court.

  1. 2015Xtend seed goes on sale; no approved over-the-top dicamba existed at the time
  2. 20173,101 drift complaints against 2,765 forecast; 3.6 million acres damaged
  3. 2018Xtend soybeans planted on 44 million acres
  4. 2019Xtend platform on 60 million acres
  5. 2020Courts vacate dicamba registration (first time); Bader jury verdict; Bayer sets aside up to USD 400 million
  6. 2024Court vacates the registration again
  7. 2026EPA re-registers dicamba (February), for 2026 and 2027; challenged in court

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

Where accounts differ

Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.

Who was responsible for dicamba drift damage?
Courts
Jury (2020) and 8th Circuit

Found Monsanto and BASF liable; compensatory award of USD 15 million upheld, punitive damages overturned on appeal.

Company or project
Bayer

Did not admit crime or liability; attributed the damage to illegal application by third parties.

Should over-the-top dicamba be registered?
Courts
Federal courts

Vacated the registration in 2020 and 2024.

National Agricultural Law Center
Government and regulators
EPA

Re-registered over-the-top dicamba for tolerant soybean for 2026 and 2027 (February 2026).

SDSU Extension

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

    Recorded

    • Monsanto forecast 2,765 drift complaints for 2017; 3,101 were received.
    • The complaint budget rose from USD 2.4 million to USD 6.5 million.
    • In a farmer survey, 24% said they planted dicamba-tolerant soybeans only to protect themselves from a neighbour's dicamba.
    • The registration for over-the-top dicamba was vacated by courts in 2020 and 2024.
      National Agricultural Law Center
    • The EPA approved over-the-top dicamba for tolerant soybean for 2026 and 2027.
      SDSU Extension

    Who gained

    Money that reached nature, beside money that stayed elsewhere.

    Reached nature or the ground

    Not published
    No figure published.

    Gained elsewhere

    Not totalled
    Currency: USD · Window: . All figures cover the same period. * Estimate built from cited figures.

    Responses on record

    • bayer (2020): Its CEO said the company did not admit crime or liability in the settlement and attributed the damage to illegal application by third parties.

    In court and with insurers

    Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

    Lawsuits and rulings

    1. 2020Reduced on appeal$15m Compensatory damages upheld (USD million)
      Bader Farms v Monsanto and BASF
      MDL; jury trial, then 8th Circuit · Civil · Bader Farms (peach grower) → Monsanto (Bayer) and BASF

      A 2020 jury found the companies had agreed to a joint venture and conspiracy over dicamba drift. The 8th Circuit upheld liability and the USD 15 million compensatory award; the USD 250 million punitive award was overturned and a retrial on punitive damages was sought. Bader also reached a settlement whose amount was not disclosed.

    2. 2024-02Claimant won
      Vacatur of the over-the-top dicamba registration
      US federal court · Administrative · → EPA

      Courts vacated the registration in 2020 and 2024. National Agricultural Law Center

    3. Ongoing
      Challenge to the February 2026 dicamba registration
      not on record · Administrative · → EPA

      The new registration was also challenged in court. SDSU Extension

    Insurers

    No insurer decision on record.

    What nature saw

    Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

    Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

    Acres damaged
    3.6 million
    2017; figure as given in the sources reviewed
    Complaints
    3,101
    2017, against 2,765 forecast by Monsanto
    Registration
    Vacated twice
    2020 and 2024; re-issued February 2026

    What we don't know

    Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
    Court ruling existsCase pending / contestedNo independent ecological evaluationKey earnings undisclosed

    Nature

    • Not measured Harm to nature: No independent ecological evaluation is on record.
    • Disputed Who was responsible for dicamba drift damage?

    Accounts

    • Disputed Should over-the-top dicamba be registered?

    Record

    • Not disclosed Revenue of the Xtend platform is not published.
    • Not disclosed The amount of the Bader Farms settlement is not disclosed.
    • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: a sales projection for 'defensive planting' appears only in an advocacy group's account; the underlying document was not seen.

    Did the harm stop?

    The registration was vacated in 2020 and 2024; the EPA re-registered over-the-top dicamba in February 2026 for 2026 and 2027.

    Who paid?

    Bader Farms received a jury award of USD 15 million in compensatory damages (upheld) plus an undisclosed settlement; Bayer set aside up to USD 400 million for 2015-2020 drift damage.

    Sources

    Voices on record: — Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts— Press and investigations— Communities and civil society✓ Researchers

    Researchers

    2. The deal with dicamba: court vacates over-the-top registration
      National Agricultural Law Center · 2024-02

    Connected cases

    Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
    Terms used on this page

    Institutions

    EPA
    The US Environmental Protection Agency.

    Law and courts

    Punitive damages
    Money a court orders a defendant to pay to punish especially reckless conduct, on top of compensation for losses. Mainly used in US courts.

    Science and environment

    PFOA (C8) and PFAS
    PFAS are a large family of human-made chemicals that persist in the environment and the body; PFOA, also called C8, is one of them and was used to make Teflon.
    Similar cases
    Pesticides and agrochemicals · Insurance, liability and compensation funds · Chemical pollution · United States · 1947–2020
    Montrose DDT insurance case
    Same type: Pesticides and agrochemicals, Chemical pollutionSame countryCourt: won by claimant