Body
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday appeared divided over whether to block thousands of lawsuits alleging the maker of Roundup failed to warn that the weedkiller could cause cancer, according to arguments reported by the Associated Press. The case, filed by a Missouri man identified as John Durnell, centers on how federal pesticide regulation intersects with state law claims in the face of evolving cancer research.
The dispute comes amid a “tidal wave” of Roundup litigation that has produced some multibillion-dollar verdicts against the global agrochemical company Bayer, which owns Monsanto, and which has set aside $16 billion to settle cases. Several justices voiced sympathy for Bayer’s argument that the lawsuits cannot proceed under state law because federal regulators have found Roundup is not likely to cause cancer when used as directed, the AP report said.
Durnell’s lawsuit says he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after more than 20 years as the neighborhood association’s “spray guy,” using Roundup on parks in his St. Louis community, according to the AP. The report says a jury agreed that the company failed to warn him about possible cancer dangers and awarded him $1.25 million, as part of thousands of similar cases.
During the hearing, attorneys argued over whether federal law allows state claims to proceed even after federal regulators have approved product labeling without a cancer warning, AP said. The justices also discussed the speed of scientific and regulatory change, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raising that EPA reviews its labeling determinations every 15 years, a timeline she said may be long in terms of scientific advancement.
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether tying states’ hands until the EPA completes its review process would prevent state courts from acting when new information suggests risks that are not on the label, the AP reported. Durnell’s lawyers said federal law does not stop Bayer from adding warnings about possible cancer risks under state law, the report said, while Bayer maintained that its labeling must follow federal standards.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern that allowing liability across a patchwork of state standards could undermine the uniformity federal pesticide regulation is meant to create, according to the AP. Kavanaugh asked whether it would be “uniformity when each state can require different things,” the report said.
The hearing highlighted the scientific disagreement over Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate. The AP report said the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015, while the Environmental Protection Agency has determined it is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed.
The companies’ positions and the regulatory record have also fed broader political tensions around pesticide policy. AP reported that Monsanto is backed by the Trump administration, a legal stance that contrasts with some allies in the Make America Healthy Again movement who seek to rein in pesticide use, and it said Robert F. Kennedy has repeatedly said that glyphosate causes cancer even as he described an executive order to boost glyphosate’s production as necessary for food supply and national security reasons.
AP also reported that environmental groups say Bayer wants to keep juries out of the lawsuits because it has lost in state courts, and it noted that Bayer has faced more than 100,000 Roundup claims, mostly from home users. The report said Bayer has stopped using glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market and has said it might consider pulling glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if lawsuits persist, citing a court document from the American Farm Bureau Federation that warned removal would create “immediate, devastating risk to America’s food supply.”
Outside the courtroom, the AP report said dozens of MAHA activists and supporters gathered for a “People vs. Poison” rally against Monsanto’s efforts to shield itself from lawsuits. The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case by the end of June.