Listen to the audio version of this article (generated by AI).
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the former Monsanto Co. in a high-profile case that limits people’s right to sue pesticide companies for alleged illnesses and injuries.
This decision 7-2 split, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh present the majority opinion, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson Write a dissenting opinion.
The case is Monsanto v Darnellspecifically addressed the question of whether the federal law that gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory authority over pesticides preempts states’ claims that companies have failed to warn users of certain product risks, even though the EPA itself does not require such warnings.
The court said in its decision that the EPA regulates Roundup, one of Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides, and that the agency “has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer, (and) … there was no need to carry a carcinogenicity warning on the Roundup label.” The SCOTUS opinion argues that regulations require manufacturers to use EPA-approved pesticide labels, and that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), states cannot impose different labeling requirements than the EPA.
“Because Mr. Darnell’s state tort claim imposes pesticide labeling requirements “in addition to, or in addition to,” the labeling required by EPA, FIFRA expressly gives preference to Mr. Darnell’s claims, Judge Kavanaugh wrote.
The Darnell case deals with glyphosate, a herbicide 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.
Over the past decade, Bayer has fought more than 100,000 lawsuits brought by people who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma due to exposure to glyphosate herbicides, paying out billions of dollars in jury compensation and settlements. All lawsuits include allegations that the company failed to warn that glyphosate could cause cancer.
Bayer maintains that its products do not cause cancer and that the EPA is the primary authority to determine whether its products require a carcinogenicity warning under FIFRA. The EPA does not require such warnings, and glyphosate isunlikely”Bayer claims that because it is carcinogenic, the company cannot be held liable for failing to warn.
Bayer praised the ruling in a statement, calling it “good for scientists, farmers, and industry that rely on regulatory clarity for innovation.”
However, health and environmental groups condemned the decision.
“President Trump-favored rulings that prevent Americans from seeking justice for serious health problems related to EPA-approved pesticides mean now more than ever we need an EPA to protect people, not foreign pesticide companies,” said Nathan Donley, director of environmental health sciences at the Center for Biological Diversity.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, argued that Darnell’s claims fall within the scope of FIFRA, specifically the law’s prohibition on “mislabeling” pesticides.
“By accepting Monsanto’s arguments and finding that Mr. Darnell’s non-warning claims were preempted, the court misunderstands FIFRA’s requirements, misunderstands the scope of FIFRA’s preemption rights, and ultimately leaves Mr. Darnell without any remedy for the significant harm he suffered,” Judge Jackson wrote.
The court’s decision means failure to warn claims included in the thousands of lawsuits pending against Monsanto will likely not proceed. Other types of claims, such as negligence and “design defect”, which are common in these types of lawsuits, are not affected.
Still, many lawyers said the ruling would make it more difficult for consumers to hold companies liable for dangerous products.
“This is a deeply disappointing decision, not only for the tens of thousands of people who are said to be battling cancer from years of Roundup exposure, but also for all Americans who believe that corporations should be held accountable when they harm people,” Ricky LeBlanc, principal attorney at Sokolob Law Firm, said in a statement.
The ruling “should help significantly curtail Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles,” Bayer said in a statement. “As a result of this judgment, current warning-based claims should be dismissed and future warning-based claims should be barred.”
The decision could mean thousands of similar claims pending against pesticide maker Syngenta cannot proceed as well. In the Syngenta lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim that exposure to the company’s paraquat herbicide caused them to develop Parkinson’s disease.
“Glyphosate is just the tip of the pesticide iceberg,” Donley said.
“The EPA has approved hundreds of toxins that the agency itself has linked to cancer, and our parents, children, and loved ones are paying the price with their health and sometimes their lives,” he said. “The need for fundamental reform of our industry-dominated pesticide regulatory system could not be clearer.”
Separate from the Supreme Court case, Bayer is proposing a $7.25 billion class action settlement to resolve tens of thousands of current lawsuits and potential future lawsuits. The Supreme Court’s decision could affect the proposed settlement agreement.
This is breaking news and will be updated.
Featured image distributed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
-
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.
