Bayer and its subsidiary Monsanto continue the defense of its glyphosate business. On the heels of the Supreme Court ruling knocking down failure to warn claims and supporting federal pre-emption via FIFRA, today, the company filed an anti-dumping petition against Chinese glyphosate and requested counterveiling duties.
Their ask: for the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission to open an antidumping case on glyphosate from China and impose duties because it argues Chinese glyphosate is being sold in the U.S. at less than fair value.
In a statement from Monsanto:
“Today Monsanto filed antidumping and countervailing duties petitions to address predatory trade practices and subsidized imports of glyphosate. The domestic glyphosate business as it stands today is not sustainable. This action is needed to support long-term U.S. production for American farmers.”
In the petition, Monsanto says its price comparisons show Chinese producers sold the subject merchandise in the U.S. at prices below normal value, with alleged dumping margins ranging from 68.90% to 446.47%.
In addition to the anti-dumping investigation, the company is asking for the imposition of duties on imports of Chinese glyphosate.
From Applause to Criticism
Bayer/Monsanto is the only domestic producer of glyphosate for U.S. farmers. The company mines elemental phosphorus in Soda Springs, Idaho, formulates glyphosate production in Muscatine, Iowa, and finishes the formulation and production in Luling, La.
For the past three years, due to the legal liability burden of close to 180,000 lawsuits alleging Roundup caused plaintiffs’ cancers, company leadership has been intensely focused to get control over its product liability. Company leaders publicly said if their efforts to contain the legal issues weren’t successful, they could discontinue production of the herbicide.
On Feb. 18, President Trump signed an executive order related to domestic elemental phosphorus and glyphosate production touching on three policy tenets common to the administration: national security, food production and affordability.
Last week’s Supreme Court decision was ‘applauded’ by many agricultural industry groups as a step toward solidifying the supply of glyphosate.
Today’s announcement of the antidumping petition came was met with criticism from many ag groups.
- “Agricultural companies like to position themselves as a partner to American farmers,” said Jed Bower, Ohio farmer and president of the National Corn Growers Association. “This is no act of partnership. They are taking this step purely for benefit of the company and its shareholders, once again at the expense of the American farmer and at a time when the ag economy is facing one of its most difficult periods in decades.”
- “The American Soybean Association strongly opposes action taken by Monsanto Company and its subsidiary, Ruveon LLC, to file a petition with the U.S. Department of Commerce seeking antidumping and countervailing duties on glyphosate imports from the People’s Republic of China – the world’s largest producer and exporter of glyphosate. Bayer – the parent company of Monsanto – is the only domestic manufacturer and supplier of glyphosate.”
- National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) CEO Sam Kieffer issued the following statement: “Tariffs on imported glyphosate will be felt by American farmers. Wheat growers are already facing stubbornly high input costs, weak commodity prices, and continued market uncertainty. This announcement comes at a difficult time in a tough farm economy.”
Deeper Into the Math
A major legal justification is that Commerce still treats China as a non-market economy. Because of that, Monsanto argues Commerce should not use Chinese home-market prices to determine normal value. Instead, Commerce should calculate normal value using the factors of production and surrogate values from comparable market-economy countries.
Monsanto argues Commerce should use Brazil, Mexico, and Türkiye as surrogate countries to value factors of production and construct normal value, because China is treated as a non-market economy.
