Photo: Alamy
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a key ruling on Thursday in a high-profile case concerning a chemical company selling a weed-killing pesticide in the United States.
In Monsanto v. Durnell, the court ruled in favor of the chemical and agribusiness company (acquired by Bayer in 2018), holding that the pesticide manufacturer cannot be held liable under state laws for failing to warn consumers about alleged cancer risks associated with using a weed-killing pesticide, “Roundup.”
The court ruled in a 7-2 decision, with Justices Ketanji Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.
“Because EPA has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer, the agency has not required a cancer warning on Roundup’s label,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the opinion of the court. “Importantly, EPA’s regulations require a pesticide manufacturer such as Monsanto to use the EPA-approved pesticide label—here, the Roundup label without a cancer warning—unless and until EPA approves or requires a different label.”
The crux of the case rests on a “failure-to warn tort suit” in Missouri, where the plaintiff sued the pesticide manufacturer for failing to warn about an alleged risk of cancer on the label of the well-known weedkiller.
The plaintiff, John Durnell, alleged that his long-term exposure to Roundup caused him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and that Monsanto had not properly warned him of such risks associated with the weedkiller.
SCOTUS’s opinion on Thursday affirmed that federal law holds the authority to regulate the warning labeling of the pesticide product. In other words, Roundup is required to use the EPA-approved (federal) label and cannot be required to include extra information on its labeling outside of federal regulations.
“Durnell’s state-law failure-to-warn claim would require a cancer warning on Roundup’s label—a requirement ‘in addition to’ and ‘different from’ the label required by EPA under FIFRA. FIFRA therefore expressly preempts Durnell’s claim,” Kavanaugh’s opinion noted. “We reverse the judgment of the Missouri Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. “
FIFRA refers to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which is a “Federal statute that governs the registration, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides in the United States.”
Health advocate and commentator Alex Clark reacted to the ruling on X, arguing that the opinion was a “STUNNING betrayal.”
“Today the Supreme Court made it impossible for people who develop cancer after using Roundup to sue Bayer for failing to warn them about the potential cancer risk,” she said.
Outgoing Congressman Thomas Massie, R-Ky., remarked, “Even if the legal reasoning of the court is sound in this case, it’s a blatant travesty of justice. Congress and the President can fix this and we absolutely should.”
By contrast, following the ruling, Bayer issued a statement addressing the Supreme Court decision.
“The U.S. Supreme Court decision is good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation. It should help significantly contain the Roundup™ litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles,” the company said. “The ruling should result in the dismissal of current warning-based claims and bar future failure-to-warn claims.”
