{"id":43825,"date":"2026-06-26T12:07:43","date_gmt":"2026-06-26T12:07:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/43825\/"},"modified":"2026-06-26T12:07:43","modified_gmt":"2026-06-26T12:07:43","slug":"us-supreme-court-rules-for-monsanto-in-case-over-pesticides-and-cancer-warnings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/43825\/","title":{"rendered":"US Supreme Court rules for Monsanto in case over pesticides and cancer warnings"},"content":{"rendered":"

Listen to the audio version of this article (generated by AI).<\/p>\n

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the former Monsanto company in a closely watched case that limits people\u2019s ability to sue pesticide companies for alleged illnesses or injuries.<\/p>\n

The decision<\/a> was made in a 7-2 split, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh\u00a0offering the majority opinion and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing the dissenting opinion.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The case, Monsanto v Durnell<\/a>, specifically dealt with the question of whether a federal law that gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory authority over pesticides preempts state claims that a company failed to warn users of certain product risks when the EPA itself has not required such warnings.<\/p>\n

In its ruling, the court said that the EPA regulates Roundup, one of Monsanto\u2019s glyphosate-based herbicides, and the agency has \u201crepeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer, [and] \u2026 has not required a cancer warning on Roundup\u2019s label.\u201d Regulations require manufacturers to use EPA-approved pesticide labels, the SCOTUS opinion argues, and, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), states cannot impose labeling requirements different from the EPA.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause Durnell\u2019s state tort claim would impose a pesticide labeling requirement \u2018in addition to or different from\u2019 the label required by EPA, FIFRA expressly preempts Durnell\u2019s claim,\u201d Justice Kavanaugh wrote.<\/p>\n

The Durnell case deals with glyphosate \u2013 a weedkilling chemical used in the popular Roundup brand and numerous other herbicide products sold by the former Monsanto company, which is now owned by Germany\u2019s Bayer. The chemical has been scientifically linked<\/a> to cancer in multiple studies, and was classified a probable human carcinogen by an arm of the World Health Organization<\/a> in 2015.<\/p>\n

Bayer has spent the last decade fighting more than 100,000 lawsuits filed by people who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma they blamed on exposure to the glyphosate weedkillers, and the company has paid out billions of dollars in jury awards and settlements. All of the cases include allegations that the company failed to warn that glyphosate could cause cancer.<\/p>\n

Bayer maintains that its products don\u2019t cause cancer, and also asserts that under FIFRA, the EPA is the key authority for determining if its product necessitated a cancer warning. The EPA has not required such a warning and has taken the position that glyphosate is \u201cunlikely<\/a>\u201d to be carcinogenic, so the company cannot be held liable for failing to warn, according to Bayer\u2019s argument.<\/p>\n

In a statement<\/a>, Bayer praised the ruling as \u201cgood for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Health and environmental groups, however, slammed the decision.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis Trump-blessed ruling preventing Americans\u2019 from seeking justice for serious health problems linked to an EPA-approved pesticide means that now, more than ever, we need an EPA that protects people instead of foreign pesticide companies,\u201d said Nathan Donley, the Center for Biological Diversity\u2019s environmental health science director.<\/p>\n

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Jackson, who was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, argued Durnell\u2019s claim is squarely within FIFRA, and specifically the Act\u2019s prohibition of pesticide \u201cmisbranding.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIn accepting Monsanto\u2019s argument and holding that Durnell\u2019s failure-to-warn claim is preempted, the Court misunderstands FIFRA\u2019s requirements, misinterprets the scope of FIFRA\u2019s preemption, and ultimately leaves Durnell without a remedy for the significant harms he has suffered,\u201d Justice Jackson wrote.<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s decision means the failure-to-warn claims included in several thousand lawsuits pending against Monsanto likely cannot go forward.\u00a0Other types of claims, such as negligence and \u201cdesign defect\u201d, common in these types of lawsuits, would not be impacted.<\/p>\n

Still, many lawyers said the ruling makes it more difficult for consumers to hold companies accountable for dangerous products.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is a deeply disappointing decision, not just for the tens of thousands of people allegedly fighting cancer after years of Roundup exposure, but for every American who believes that corporations should be held accountable when they harm people,\u201d Ricky LeBlanc, managing attorney at Sokolove Law, said in a statement.<\/p>\n

The ruling \u201cshould help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles,\u201d Bayer wrote in its statement. \u201cThe ruling should result in the dismissal of current warning-based claims and bar future failure-to-warn claims.\u201d<\/p>\n

The decision could mean thousands of such claims pending against pesticide maker Syngenta cannot proceed as well. In the Syngenta cases, plaintiffs allege they developed Parkinson\u2019s disease due to exposure to the company\u2019s paraquat weed killer.<\/p>\n

Donley said \u201cglyphosate is just the tip of the pesticide iceberg.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe EPA has approved hundreds of poisons the agency itself has linked to cancer, and our parents, kids and loved ones are paying for it with their health, sometimes their lives,\u201d he said. \u201cThe need to profoundly reform our industry-captured system of pesticide regulation could not be clearer.\u201d<\/p>\n

Separately from the Supreme Court case, Bayer has proposed a $7.25 billion class action settlement to resolve tens of thousands of current cases and future claims that could be brought. The Supreme Court ruling could potentially impact the proposed settlement deal.<\/p>\n

This is a breaking story and will be updated.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Featured image handout from US Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

\"\" <\/p>\n

Carey Gillam is the editor-in-chief of The New Lede and a veteran investigative journalist with more than 30 years of experience covering US news, including 17 years as a senior correspondent with Reuters international news service (1998-2015). She is the author of \u201cWhitewash – The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science,\u201d an expose of Monsanto\u2019s corporate corruption of agriculture. The book won the coveted Rachel Carson Book Award from the Society of Environmental Journalists in 2018. Her second book, a narrative legal thriller titled The Monsanto Papers, was released March 2, 2021.<\/p>\n

She also has contributed chapters for a text book about environmental journalism and a book about pesticide use in Africa.<\/p>\n

Gillam testified as an invited expert before the European Parliament in 2017 about her research, and was a featured speaker at the World Forum for Democracy in Strasbourg, France in 2019. She also has been a keynote and\/or panel speaker at events and universities throughout North America, Australia, The Netherlands, Brussels, and France.<\/p>\n

Gillam writes regularly for The Guardian. Her work has additionally been published in The New York Times, Huffington Post, Time, and other outlets.<\/p>\n

In 2022, Gillam helped launch The New Lede as a journalism initiative of the Environmental Working Group.
Gillam is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Listen to the audio version of this article (generated by AI). The US Supreme Court has ruled in…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":43826,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21161],"tags":[21182,3080,1803,22645,23786,22751,22644,1978,3421,7897,23306],"class_list":["post-43825","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-bayer","tag-bayer","tag-cancer","tag-courts","tag-epa","tag-fifra","tag-food-farming","tag-glyphosate","tag-law","tag-litigation","tag-monsanto","tag-us-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43825","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43825"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43825\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/43826"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43825"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43825"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43825"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}