Supreme Court to Hear Monsanto’s Appeal in Roundup Cancer Lawsuits
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court announced Friday it will hear Monsanto’s appeal to be shielded from tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging its weed killer,Roundup,causes cancer. The court will not directly rule on weather glyphosate, Roundup’s key ingredient, does cause cancer – a debate with conflicting studies – but will rather focus on a legal question of federal preemption.
The core of the dispute is whether federal laws regulating pesticides prevent individuals from suing Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) under state law for failing to warn consumers about potential cancer risks, especially since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not mandated such a warning label.
The case stems from a lawsuit brought by John Durnell,a Missouri man diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of using Roundup. While a jury initially rejected his claim that the product was defective, they sided with him on a “strict liability failure to warn claim,” awarding him $1.25 million in damages. Monsanto is appealing this verdict, arguing it conflicts with federal law.
Monsanto contends that the EPA has consistently resolute glyphosate does not cause cancer after decades of study and has even stated that adding a cancer warning would be considered “misbranded.” They argue that state laws are effectively forcing them to include a warning the EPA explicitly rejects.
The Supreme Court will decide whether the Federal Insecticide, fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state-level failure-to-warn claims when the EPA hasn’t required a specific warning label. Arguments are expected in April, with a ruling anticipated by late June.
Bayer CEO Bill Anderson hailed the court’s decision, stating it’s “time for the U.S. legal system to establish that companies should not be punished under state laws for complying with federal warning label requirements.” Monsanto has removed Roundup from consumer products but it remains widely used in agriculture.
Though, environmental groups like EarthJustice argue the court shouldn’t protect manufacturers of perhaps dangerous products, warning that a ruling in Monsanto’s favor could allow pesticide companies to avoid accountability even when their products cause harm. They emphasize that individuals using pesticides expect them to be safe and deserve legal recourse if they develop cancer consequently.
Even lawyers from the Trump administration urged the court to take the case, pointing to the EPA’s consistent approval of Roundup labels without cancer warnings and the conflict with state court rulings upholding lawsuits based on a failure to warn.
Worth a look