Listen to the audio version of this article (generated by AI).
members of United States Supreme Court Lawyers for the former Monsanto Co. faced a barrage of questions Monday over pesticide regulations, arguing over whether federal law preempts state lawsuits that allow consumers to sue companies for not warning them of product risks such as cancer.
Monsanto v. Darnell centers on the herbicide glyphosate, which is used in the popular Roundup brand and numerous other herbicide products sold by the former Monsanto Company, now owned by Germany’s Bayer. Chemicals are scientifically linked It has been linked to cancer potential in multiple studies and has been classified as a possible human carcinogen by national agencies. world health organization In 2015.
Gather outside the Supreme Court. (Credit: Shannon Kelleher/TNL)
Over the past decade, Bayer has fought more than 100,000 lawsuits by people who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma due to exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide. The company has paid out billions of dollars in jury awards and settlements.
In Darnell and many other cases that went to trial, juries found that Monsanto failed to warn plaintiffs that glyphosate could cause cancer.
While Monsanto maintains that its products are not carcinogenic, it 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 about cancer risks if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not recognize the existence of such risks and does not require such warnings. EPA’s position is that glyphosate is “Unlikely” Carcinogenic.
If Monsanto were to prevail in the high court, it would be difficult for consumers to file similar lawsuits not only against Monsanto but also against other pesticide manufacturers.
Young demonstrators at the “People vs. Toxics” rally. (Credit: Carey Gillam/TNL)
During court arguments, Monsanto’s attorney Paul Clement told the judge that it was “very clear” that FIFRA regulations prohibit pesticide manufacturers from changing safety warnings on pesticide labels without EPA approval, so the company could not be held liable for not issuing a cancer warning.
“Congress clearly wanted uniformity with respect to safety warnings on pesticide labels,” Clement told the justices. “Ignoring Congress’ clear direction here opens the door to significant liability and harms the interests of farmers whose livelihoods depend on federally registered pesticides.”
Clement reiterated that the EPA’s pesticide approval process is rigorous and that the agency’s position that glyphosate is not carcinogenic is supported by other regulatory agencies “around the world.”
Justice Department Chief Attorney General Sarah Harris also argued in support of Monsanto’s position. Harris told the judges that countries cannot “second guess or try to undermine” the EPA process.
In opposing Monsanto, attorney Ashley Keller told the judge that “the United States is wrong” and that FIFRA does not provide “preemptive power” to Monsanto’s claimed blanket authority. He also told the judge that the EPA’s registration process is deeply flawed, noting that the agency is not updating glyphosate registration reviews every 15 years as required by law, and that things are “slipping through the cracks with the EPA.”
He also pointed out that the EPA’s findings on human health and glyphosate are: Seats available by 9 o’clockth circuit court of appeals Toward 2022 Not following established guidelines for determining cancer risk and ignoring important research.
The justices sometimes stopped mid-argument to ask questions of the lawyers on various points. Some pressed Monsanto’s lawyers on how to handle labeling issues if new science showing harm arises between EPA reviews, while others questioned the fairness of retroactively penalizing a company for missing warnings on EPA-approved labels.
“Both sides put forward good cases,” said Daniel Hinkle, senior policy adviser for the American Association for Justice, who attended the oral argument. “I thought they asked some serious questions and really addressed the implications of this case.”
Bayer said a favorable Supreme Court ruling would help end the case. The Chinese company Syngenta is supporting Monsanto’s lawsuit. has also been sued Thousands of people across the U.S. say the company didn’t warn them about the study Link between Syngenta’s paraquat herbicide products and Parkinson’s disease.
Demonstrators at the “People vs. Toxic” rally. (Credit: Shannon Kelleher/TNL)
In addition to Monsanto and Syngenta, future lawsuits against other pesticide makers could be similarly limited, legal experts said.
Bayer released a statement after the Supreme Court hearing, saying:The court carefully considered how FIFRA’s uniform language and its federal preemption provisions apply to state-based label warnings. ”
“We believe the U.S. government and our company have made a convincing case that, as in Darnell, state-based warning labels “in addition to or different from” warning labels approved by EPA under FIFRA are preempted, which is necessary to avoid a patchwork of 50 different warning labels,” the company said. “Companies should not be penalized under state law for complying with federal labeling requirements. The safety and affordability of the nation’s food supply depends on farmers and manufacturers trusting the science-based decisions of federal regulators.”
Before and during the hearing, protesters from the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement rallied outside the courthouse to protest the Trump administration’s support for Monsanto, citing the attorney general’s support for Monsanto’s position and Trump’s recent executive order declaring protecting glyphosate production a national security issue. Some chanted “People over poison,” while others waved placards with slogans such as “Round up the guilty” and “Make Monsanto pay.”
“Right now, it’s critical that we let the Supreme Court, as well as the Legislature and the Executive Branch, know that we will no longer tolerate being poisoned. These companies must be held accountable, and that starts today,” said Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America and leader of MAHA.
Alexandra Muñoz, an independent toxicologist, marched with the protesters. “I’ve read the literature on glyphosate, and glyphosate is definitely a carcinogen. The evidence is very clear.”
Representative Cherry Pingree, a Democrat from Maine, was among several members at the rally.
“These are issues I’ve been working on for a long time,” Pingree told The New Lede. “It’s a great day to have a physical rally in front of the Supreme Court and bring together so many people from all over the country, so many Republicans and Democrats united to eliminate toxins from our food, our environment, and our agricultural systems.”
The Supreme Court hearing will take place as follows: U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Rules Taking up the new farm bill, Officially known as HR 7567 (Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026).
Mr. Pingree and Republican Rep. Thomas Massey of Kentucky last week. announced amendments The farm bill removes provisions protecting chemical manufacturers like Bayer from lawsuits and “preempts state and local warning label laws and regulations for the use of potentially harmful products.”
Featured image credit: Carey Gillam/TNL
-
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 Society 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.
