Listen to the audio version of this article (generated by AI).
The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in a major pesticide regulation case on Monday, setting the stage for a ruling that could weaken the ability of consumers to sue companies for failing to warn them of the risks of their products.
The case, titled Monsanto v. Darnell, centers on glyphosate, a herbicide used in the popular Roundup brand and many other herbicide products. The chemical has been scientifically linked to cancer in multiple studies and was classified as a probable human carcinogen by a division of the World Health Organization in 2015.
Monsanto, which introduced glyphosate to the world in the 1970s and is now part of the German conglomerate Bayer, has fought more than 100,000 lawsuits over the past decade for failing to warn customers about the cancer risks associated with exposure to glyphosate products.
The company has paid billions of dollars to settle the majority of its lawsuits after losing multiple jury trials and is proposing to spend an additional $7.25 billion toward a class action settlement aimed at resolving up to 60,000 pending lawsuits.
Monsanto maintains that its products do not cause cancer and hopes that a favorable Supreme Court ruling will effectively end the case.
Monsanto’s lawsuit is backed by Chinese-owned Syngenta, which is also being sued by thousands of people across the United States for failing to warn them about research linking Syngenta’s paraquat herbicide products to Parkinson’s disease.
In addition to Monsanto and Syngenta, future lawsuits against other chemical companies could be similarly limited, legal experts said.
Specifically, Monsanto is asking the Supreme Court to rule that it cannot be held liable under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for failing to warn of cancer risks if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fails to find that such risks exist and do not require such warnings. FIFRA preempts state requirements for such cancer warnings, the company argues.
EPA’s position is that glyphosate is “unlikely” to cause cancer.
Lawrence Ebner, general counsel for the Atlantic Law Foundation, which supports Monsanto, said in a press conference ahead of the court hearing that consumers could be misled by unnecessary warnings.
“When you have pesticide labels with a myriad of different warnings, how can users know what’s really important and what the EPA has determined is really necessary?” he said.
The Atlantic Law Foundation is one of more than 100 individuals and organizations represented in briefs filed with the Supreme Court supporting Monsanto’s position. Many cite glyphosate’s strong safety record and argue that juries cannot punish companies for failing to put warnings on their labels when the EPA does not require them. Some fear that a loss in the Supreme Court could mean glyphosate will be taken off the market. They argue that without glyphosate, the country’s food production would be at risk.
Separately, more than 100 parties have also filed briefs with the court opposing Monsanto’s position. They say FIFRA clearly carves out space for separate state labeling requirements, including product risk warnings.
They point to lower court rulings on the issue and a 2005 Supreme Court decision as setting precedent for such warnings. A new interpretation of FIFRA’s preemptive action would effectively shield manufacturers of dangerous products from liability, they say.
Daniel Fougere, president of As You So, a nonprofit shareholder advocacy group that promotes corporate responsibility, said in an interview that states need to be able to step in when regulators are unable to protect public health due to undue influence from lobbyists or other factors. He said the erosion of state-based warning requirements could leave consumers without the protection they need from harmful products.
“Without the possibility of liability, companies can do whatever they want, sell what they want to sell, and create damages they don’t have to pay. That’s exactly what we’re talking about,” she said.
maharali
The high-profile incident reveals a deepening rift between the Trump administration and grassroots members of the Movement to Make America Healthy Again (MAHA).
MAHA member states have called for tighter regulations on glyphosate, but these efforts have been repeatedly rejected by the Trump administration. Anger escalated last year when Attorney General D. John Sauer, appointed by the Trump administration, encouraged the Supreme Court to hear the Monsanto case.
Anger intensified after President Trump issued an executive order in February seeking to protect production of glyphosate herbicides.
Sauer then 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 “uniformity” in pesticide labels across the United States. Sauer then asked the court to give oral argument in support of Monsanto’s position during Monday’s hearing, and was granted permission.
That’s too much for MAHA, which is trying to hold a People vs. Toxic rally outside the courthouse.
“The Trump administration should know that siding with Bayer over American families is a disservice,” said Bani Hari, a leading health advocate and rally organizer. “People expect leadership that puts their health first, not policies that protect corporations from liability. How can you tell Americans to eat more real food and then protect a company that sprays poison on it? That’s a contradiction we can’t accept,” she said.
“The Trump administration should know that siding with Bayer over American families is a disadvantage.” – Vani Hari
The gathering will feature more than 30 speakers from across the country, including former and current members of Congress, lawyers, farmers, scientists, and several health influencers.
JW Glass, senior EPA policy expert at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement that if the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Monsanto and its German owner Bayer, it would be a “serious miscarriage of justice” that would deny “Americans the right to hold toxic manufacturers accountable for cancer, neurological disorders and other diseases associated with pesticides.”
Glass said the EPA has “catastrophically failed” in evaluating the health risks of pesticides, pointing to a recent analysis that found the EPA does not routinely require pesticides to carry cancer warning labels, even when the agency itself has determined the ingredient is carcinogenic.
“The pesticide industry and the Trump Justice Department are trying to fool judges into believing that the EPA’s pesticide regulatory system is so strong that no further protections are needed,” Glass said. “However, any honest assessment of the Pesticide Service’s track record leaves us with no choice but to conclude that it has failed catastrophically in assessing the health risks of dangerous pesticides.”
Investor in crisis
Tom Crapps, managing director of regulatory analysis at advisory firm Gordon Haskett, said investors are watching the hearing closely because the outcome could be what he called a “very important catalyst” to ending the decade-long Roundup litigation.
In a research note to Bayer shareholders, Crapps said investors should be “bound” by Monday’s Supreme Court hearing because it could affect whether plaintiffs in the nationwide Roundup lawsuit decide whether to participate or not participate in the $7.25 billion settlement that Bayer proposed in February.
Plaintiffs have until June 4 to decide whether to participate in the settlement, before a Supreme Court ruling is expected. In other words, plaintiffs are rolling the dice when deciding whether to opt in or opt out. If a court rules that a failure to warn claim is barred, the case could be thrown out or substantially weakened. If the court rules against the company, the litigation could accelerate further.
“If Bayer were to lose the SCOTUS appeal, the settlement would be in jeopardy (and their claims would arguably be worth more) because the plaintiffs may not want to agree to the previous terms now that SCOTUS has ruled in their favor,” Claps wrote in a research note to investors.
-
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 (1998-2015) as a senior correspondent for Reuters International. 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.
