![](\"https:\/\/assets.sitespeaker.link\/embed\/skins\/default\/play-icon.png\"\/){kind=icon}
Listen to this article<\/p>\n Listen to this article<\/p>\n
Key takeaways:<\/p>\n
Supreme Court overturns $1.25 million verdict in Missouri WASHINGTON \u2013 The U.S. Supreme Court<\/a> reined in thousands of lawsuits pursued in state courts accusing Bayer of failing to warn users that the active ingredient in its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer<\/a>, handing a major legal victory on Thursday to the German company.\n<\/p>\n The justices in a 7-2 decision overturned a jury verdict in Missouri awarding $1.25 million to a man named John Durnell who said he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin\u2019s lymphoma after years of exposure to glyphosate in Roundup. The Supreme Court agreed with Bayer that a U.S. law that governs pesticides precludes failure-to-warn claims that are brought under state law from moving forward in court.<\/p>\n President Donald Trump\u2019s administration backed Bayer in the case.\n<\/p>\n Bayer acquired Roundup as part of its $63 billion purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto<\/a> in 2018. More than 100,000 plaintiffs have filed cases in U.S. state and federal courts alleging a cancer link, and the German drugmaking and crop science company had said that the lawsuits could threaten its ability to supply the herbicide to farmers.\n<\/p>\n The torrent of litigation already prompted Bayer to remove glyphosate from its consumer version of Roundup. Bayer said before the Supreme Court ruled that a decision in its favor could largely end the Roundup litigation.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in April.\n<\/p>\n \u201cThe U.S. Supreme Court decision is good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation. It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles. The ruling should result in the dismissal of current warning-based claims and bar future failure-to-warn claims,\u201d company spokesperson Tino Andresen said in a statement.\n<\/p>\n The company emphasized throughout the litigation that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency repeatedly found that glyphosate does not cause cancer and approved its product labels without a warning.\n<\/p>\n Facing billions of dollars in potential liability, Bayer announced in February a proposed $7.25 billion settlement to resolve tens of thousands of current and future lawsuits. The settlement would not affect claims that stem from pending appeals or that fall outside the deal, according to the company. Those amount to nearly $1 billion, it said.\n<\/p>\n Environmental activists and others criticized the court\u2019s ruling on Thursday.\n<\/p>\n \u201cOnce again, the Supreme Court has sided with big business over people and the environment. Today\u2019s ruling is a disaster for public health,\u201d said Tarah Heinzen, legal director at the advocacy group Food and Water Watch.\n<\/p>\n \u201cThe harm from this decision will perpetuate our cancer, infertility and general chronic disease epidemic for generations to come,\u201d said Kelly Ryerson, co-executive director of advocacy group American Regeneration and a Make America Healthy Again activist who posts on social media under the moniker \u201cThe Glyphosate Girl.\u201d\n<\/p>\n The sprawling dispute centers on a U.S. law called the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, that governs the sale and labeling of pesticides and bars states from imposing differing or additional requirements.\n<\/p>\n The measure prohibits pesticides that are \u201cmisbranded\u201d with labels that lack an adequate warning to protect health and the environment.\n<\/p>\n
\nBayer<\/a> argues federal law preempts state failure-to-warn claims
\nMore than 100,000 plaintiffs filed lawsuits over Roundup<\/a>
\nBayer proposed $7.25 billion settlement<\/a> for current and future claims<\/p>\n