The United States could face foreign attacks, food shortages and agricultural “devastation” if the U.S. Supreme Court rules against Monsanto in a high-profile case over pesticide regulation scheduled for argument later this month, according to a series of legal briefs supporting Monsanto.
By contrast, opponents’ legal briefs warn that if the court sides with Monsanto, consumers will be stripped of their right to sue if they develop cancer or other serious illnesses caused by exposure to dangerous chemicals. They warn that companies will be able to hide the risks of their products with little accountability.
A high-profile case before the Supreme Court focuses on glyphosate. Glyphosate is a widely used herbicide that has been a favorite among farmers for many years. scientifically linked Multiple studies have pointed to the possibility of cancer.
The court’s task is to determine whether federal law inherently preempts states’ labeling requirements for products that may cause harm.
The issue has excited people across the country and spurred debate across political lines. Hundreds of organizations and individuals, including elected officials from dozens of states and former federal officials, filed lengthy legal briefs detailing arguments they hope will sway the court’s decision.
Many people are taking advantage of the Supreme Court’s “lottery” and vying for tickets to watch the April 27 hearing in person. and members of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. “Man vs. Poison” rally They hope thousands of protesters will gather outside the courthouse.
“This is an important case,” said Allen Rostron, associate dean of the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. “I would characterize this as one important battle in a broader, longer war over these kinds of issues: how best to balance public health and safety interests with other concerns.”
the core of the incident
Monsanto has been owned by German conglomerate Bayer since 2018. I believe A ruling in its favor would end lawsuits brought by people who say Monsanto’s use of Roundup and other glyphosate products caused cancer and that Monsanto failed to warn them about the cancer risks.
The company has paid billions of dollars to settle most of its lawsuits after losing multiple jury trials and is proposing to spend an additional $7.25 billion to settle class action lawsuits as thousands of cases remain pending.
At the heart of Monsanto’s case before the Supreme Court is the company’s position that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the company cannot be held liable for failing to warn of cancer risks associated with its products unless the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that such risks exist and do not require a warning.
“EPA has determined that glyphosate and Roundup do not cause cancer and that warnings to the contrary are not required or permitted under FIFRA.” the company says In his brief to the court, he stated: “Overabundance of warnings for minor or non-existent risks prevents the beneficial use of pesticides.”
In taking up this case, the court said it would specifically consider whether FIFRA preempts “label-based failure to warn claims” when the EPA does not require a warning.
Citing precedent
More than 100 individuals and organizations filed briefs opposing Monsanto’s position, arguing that federal law clearly leaves room for individual state labeling requirements, including product risk warnings.
(Click to enlarge)
They point out that lower court judgment and 2005 Supreme Court decision About that issue. Establishing a new interpretation of FIFRA preemption; Effectively inoculate manufacturers They say it eliminates dangerous products from accountability.
The attorneys general of Texas, Florida, and Ohio cited the 2005 case. easy He urged the court not to rule in Monsanto’s favor, saying that “preemptive action by federal agencies poses a particular threat to national sovereignty.”
Many opponents also said in court filings that the agency has a track record of failing to adequately regulate chemicals found to be harmful to human health, and noted that the agency’s most recent review of glyphosate’s safety was inadequate. invalidated by federal court after a court determined that the agency’s assessment was not scientifically sound.
The EPA is “a classic example of a captured agency that required decades of relentless public interest litigation to enforce compliance with its most fundamental obligations,” the brief filed by the Center for Food Safety and other public health organizations states.
Eight former EPA officials also disagree with Monsanto’s position, and a group of scientists has warned of the health risks posed by glyphosate in legal briefs.
Sen. Cory Booker, in his brief, told the court that Monsanto “seeks to pervert FIFRA by rewriting it into the law that petitioners wanted it to write, a consumer safety cap that prohibits state torts, rather than the law that Congress actually wrote (a floor on what pesticide manufacturers must do in order to register with the federal government). Such an interpretation was neither contemplated nor intended by Congress.”
Another opposition group, Health Freedom Defenders, made a similar argument, saying in a prepared statement that federal law treats regulatory approval of a product as “the beginning of a duty to warn, not the end.”
Several farmworker groups weighed in as well, pointing to “significant gaps” in EPA’s requirements for scientific evaluation of pesticides.
“Authorities are just beginning to assess the health risks to children from exposure to pesticide dust and vapors that travel from fields to schools, homes, and playgrounds,” a brief submitted by farm worker organizations said. “Therefore, EPA made the registration decision and accepted the manufacturer’s label without evaluating the potentially serious toxic effects and exposures that Congress directed us to address.”
Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Roundup case also participated, filing a joint brief with lawyers representing the plaintiffs who sued another pesticide company, Syngenta. In court filings, plaintiffs’ attorneys cite evidence that both Monsanto and Syngenta are withholding evidence from the EPA about the dangers of their weed-killing products.
“Accepting Monsanto’s position would allow manufacturers to invoke EPA silence as a defense even if they fail to disclose important safety information to EPA,” the brief states. “That concern is specific here. Amici’s lawsuit includes evidence that Monsanto and Syngenta suppressed research and withheld data from the EPA, contributing to the lack of warnings on labels that they claim are preemptive.”
disastrous results
By contrast, many “pro-glyphosate advocates,” as some call themselves, equate the losses from labeling issues with forcing glyphosate off the market, arguing that without glyphosate the nation’s food production would be at risk.
“Removing glyphosate from the market would pose an immediate and catastrophic risk to America’s food supply,” several agricultural organizations warned in a legal brief.
Others, citing glyphosate’s strong safety record, argue that juries cannot punish companies for failing to put warnings on their labels when the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t require them.
“As part of multiple pesticide registrations and registration reviews, we have determined that warnings that glyphosate causes cancer are not supported by science and have approved pesticide labels that intentionally omit such warnings,” CropLife America, a pesticide industry lobbyist, said in a court filing. “Monsanto cannot change its approved label without EPA’s prior approval.”
In addition to Croplife, supporters include the Atlantic Legal Foundation, the National Agriculture Association, the Agricultural Products Retailers Association, and several other legal and business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Tort Reform Association, American Chemistry Council, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
Attorneys general from 15 states also asked the Supreme Court to side with Monsanto, arguing that “glyphosate safely increases crop yields for farmers because glyphosate is one of the least toxic herbicides currently available.” They cited that “EPA has repeatedly evaluated glyphosate and repeatedly concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk.”
Sen. Jason Bean, Republican of Missouri, filed a brief in favor of Monsanto on behalf of more than 30 other elected officials from eight agricultural groups in Missouri, Kansas, North Dakota, Iowa, Kentucky, Arizona, and Missouri.
Bean’s brief argues that glyphosate is “critical to national security and defense, including the security of our food supply,” and warns that litigation against glyphosate manufacturers such as Monsanto could lead to “further dependence on a foreign adversary, namely China” and leave the United States “vulnerable to future attacks.”
Notably, U.S. Attorney General D. John Sauer also filed a court brief in Monsanto’s favor, citing “EPA’s considered judgment as to what warnings are actually necessary to protect the public health…” and the need for national “uniformity” of pesticide labels.
Mr. Sauer is asking the U.S. government to allow him to participate in oral arguments in Supreme Court hearings in order to provide “substantive support to the Supreme Court.”
Sauer’s position is supported by President Donald Trump’s executive order in February ordering protections for pesticide production, citing glyphosate as “the foundation of this country’s agricultural productivity and rural economy.”
Nora Freeman Engstrom, a professor at Stanford Law School, said political pressure should not play a role in the Supreme Court’s decisions.
“The Trump administration has made clear what it wants the Supreme Court to rule, but the court intends to read FIFRA, and based on that reading, the court intends to conduct its own preemptive analysis,” she said. “In some areas, the federal government’s view is entitled to special respect. This is not one of those areas. In this context, the federal government’s view does not carry special weight.”
Featured image by Getty Images for Unsplash+.
-
Carrie Gillum is editor-in-chief of The New Lede and a veteran investigative journalist with more than 30 years of experience covering U.S. news, including 17 years as a senior correspondent for Reuters International News Agency (1998-2015). She is the author of Whitewashing: A Story of Herbicides, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science, which exposed the agricultural corruption of the Monsanto corporation. The book won the coveted Rachel Carson Book Award from the Association of Environmental Journalists in 2018. Her second book, the narrative law thriller The Monsanto Documents, was released on March 2, 2021.
She also contributed chapters to a textbook on environmental journalism and a book on pesticide use in Africa.
Mr. Gillum testified about his research as an invited expert before the European Parliament in 2017 and was a featured speaker at the World Democracy Forum in Strasbourg, France in 2019. He has also been a keynote speaker and panel speaker at events and universities in North America, Australia, the Netherlands, Brussels, and France.
Gillam is a regular contributor to the Guardian. Her work has also appeared in The New York Times, Huffington Post, Time, and other outlets.
In 2022, Gillum helped launch The New Lede as a journalism initiative of the Environmental Working Group.
Gillum is a member of the Association of Environmental Journalists.
