WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 25 blocked thousands of lawsuits over the weedkiller Roundup, ruling that the manufacturer can’t be sued for failing to warn that the popular product might cause cancer.
The Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates pesticides, has not determined that Roundup poses a cancer risk and does not require a label saying it does.
In a 7-2 decision, the justices said that means Roundup users who’ve developed cancer cannot sue by claiming the weed killer violates state laws about dangerous products.
Their decision rejects a role for state laws if federal protections fall short.
Bayer’s Billions in Liability
Bayer, the global agrochemical manufacturer that bought Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, is facing billions of dollars in potential liability from a deluge of lawsuits over glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup.
While Bayer has stopped using glyphosate in Roundup products sold for residential use, the company has said it might have to stop selling glyphosate to U.S. farmers if the lawsuits continue. Major agricultural groups warned that would pose a “devastating risk to America’s food supply.”
The Trump administration backed Bayer, a position that alarmed some in the Make America Health Again movement who want to reduce pesticide use.
Public health groups said the lawsuits are needed because the EPA has failed to protect Americans from risks associated with glyphosate.
The History Behind the Lawsuits
Introduced in the 1970s, Roundup quickly became the top-selling herbicide in the United States and integral to farming.
Lawsuits against Monsanto began after a World Health Organization agency in 2015 said glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans,” a finding the company disputes.
John Durnell, who used Roundup for more than two decades as the “spray guy” for his neighborhood association in a historic St. Louis neighborhood, believes glyphosate caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
In 2023, a jury agreed and said Monsanto owed him $1.25 million – just one of the many lawsuits the company is fighting.
What the Court Decided
The company’s lawyers told the Supreme Court that the EPA “considered and rejected” the idea of mandating the kind of warning that the jury in Durnell’s case recommended.
“Congress plainly wanted uniformity when it came to the safety warnings on a pesticide’s label,” Paul Clement, an attorney for Bayer, said when the case was argued in April. “Ignoring Congress’ clear direction here would open the door for crippling liability and undermine the interest of farmers who depend on federally registered pesticides for their livelihood.”
Durnell’s lawyers argued that nothing in federal law or the EPA’s regulations prohibits Monsanto from adding a cancer warning to its labels.
“Regardless of what the EPA says, they are not a safe harbor,” Ashley Keller, one of his lawyers, told the justices. “Though I think there are a lot of conscientious people working at that agency, I think we should also all agree that things slip through the cracks with that agency.”
What Happens Next
The government is required to conduct its own safety review every 15 years. But the latest update is years overdue because a federal court in 2022 said the EPA didn’t adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer when it reached an interim decision during the first Trump administration.
The Supreme Court case played out as the company was negotiating a proposed class action settlement to resolve many of the lawsuits.
Bayer hoped that both the Supreme Court and the pending settlement would limit the extent of future lawsuits. The company is also pushing for legislation to shield it from liability.
Reporting by Maureen Groppe, USA TODAY / USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
Add a Comment