The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of Bayer\u2019s subsidiary Monsanto, stating that the company cannot be sued for failing to warn of weedkiller Roundup\u2019s cancer risks. The 7-2 decision is expected to block thousands of lawsuits against the company.<\/p>\n
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)\u2014which gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority over pesticide registration, sale, and use\u2014sat at the heart of the Monsanto v. Durnell case. The court considered whether the federal law preempts state claims that the company failed to warn of Roundup\u2019s risks.<\/p>\n
The World Health Organization classifies glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, as a probable human carcinogen<\/a>. But the EPA states that it is safe when used as directed and does not require a cancer warning label.<\/p>\n Offering the majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh writes that, under FIFRA, this means states can\u2019t impose labeling requirements that differ from the federal agency\u2019s.<\/p>\n Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, stating, \u201cFIFRA expressly limits States\u2019 authority to regulate pesticide labels, but it does not eliminate that authority.\u201d Jackson was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.<\/p>\n Missouri resident John Durnell filed the case after he developed non-Hodgkin\u2019s lymphoma, which he ties to his years of applying Roundup in his community\u2019s parks. In 2019, Durnell was awarded US$1.25 million by a jury when the court ruled that Bayer did not warn of the cancer risks associated with the product. Durnell\u2019s case was appealed, however, and he never received the money.<\/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 Jackson states.<\/p>\n Similar lawsuits pending against Monsanto likely will not move forward as a result of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision, investigative journalist Carey Gillam reports<\/a>. It will also make it more difficult for people to hold companies accountable when their products pose any kind of danger to the public.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are thousands of cases that are like mine that will not see court now,\u201d says<\/a> Durnell. \u201cSo that is the biggest disappointment for me.\u201d<\/p>\n Environmental and agricultural advocacy groups expressed disappointment with the ruling, saying that it goes against scientific evidence of the herbicide\u2019s risks. Food & Water Watch calls the decision \u201ca disaster for public health\u201d and states, \u201cOnce again, the Supreme Court has sided with big business over people and the environment.\u201d<\/p>\n