\n<\/p>\n
Members of the US supreme court peppered lawyers for the former Monsanto Company with a barrage of questions over pesticide regulation on Monday, wrestling over whether federal law preempts state actions that permit consumers to sue companies for failing to warn of product risks such as cancer.<\/p>\n
The case, Monsanto v Durnell, centers on 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.<\/p>\n
The chemical has been scientifically linked to cancer in multiple studies, and was classified a probable human carcinogen by an arm of the World Health Organization in 2015.<\/p>\n
Bayer, has spent the last decade fighting more than 100,000 lawsuits by people who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma they blame on exposure to Monsanto\u2019s glyphosate weed killers. The company has paid out billions of dollars in jury awards and settlements.<\/p>\n
In the Durnell case, as well as many others that have gone to trial, the jury found that Monsanto had failed to warn the plaintiff that glyphosate could cause cancer.<\/p>\n
While maintaining that its products don\u2019t cause cancer, Monsanto is asking the supreme court to rule that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (Fifra), it cannot be held liable for failing to warn of a cancer risk if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not found such a risk exists and not required such a warning. The EPA\u2019s position is that glyphosate is \u201cunlikely\u201d to be carcinogenic.<\/p>\n
If Monsanto prevails before the high court, it would make it harder for consumers to file such lawsuits, not just against Monsanto, but against other pesticide makers as well.<\/p>\n
In arguing before the court, Paul Clement, an attorney representing Monsanto, told the justices that provisions within Fifra are \u201ccrystal clear\u201d in barring pesticide makers from changing safety warnings on a pesticide label without EPA approval, and thus cannot be held liable for not issuing a cancer warning.<\/p>\n
\u201cCongress plainly wanted uniformity when it came to the safety warnings on a pesticide\u2019s label,\u201d Clement told the justices. \u201cIgnoring Congress\u2019 clear direction here would open the door for crippling liability and undermine the interests of farmers who depend on federally registered pesticides for their livelihood.\u201d<\/p>\n
Clement argued repeatedly that the EPA process of approving a pesticide is rigorous and that its position that glyphosate is not carcinogenic is supported by other regulatory agencies \u201caround the globe\u201d.<\/p>\n
Also arguing in favor of Monsanto\u2019s position was Sarah Harris, principal deputy solicitor general for the Department of Justice. Harris told the justices that states can\u2019t try to \u201csecond guess or undermine\u201d the EPA\u2019s process.<\/p>\n
In opposition to Monsanto, attorney Ashley Keller told the justices that \u201cthe United States is wrong\u201d and said that Fifra does not provide the blanket authority claimed by Monsanto with \u201cpreemptive force\u201d. He additionally told the justices that the EPA\u2019s registration process has significant flaws and said that it has not updated its glyphosate registration review every 15 years as the law calls for. Things \u201cslip through the cracks with that agency\u201d, he said.<\/p>\n
He also said that the EPA\u2019s findings regarding human health and glyphosate were vacated by the ninth circuit court of appeals in 2022 for failing to follow established guidelines for determining cancer risk and ignoring important studies.<\/p>\n
Sometimes interrupting mid-argument, the justices quizzed the attorneys on multiple fronts. Some pressed Monsanto\u2019s lawyer on how labeling issues should be handled when new science showing harm arises in between EPA reviews, while others asked about the fairness of retroactively penalizing a company for a lack of a warning on a label approved by the EPA.<\/p>\n
The court\u2019s three liberal justices appeared skeptical of Monsanto\u2019s argument, but it was less clear how the rest of the justices might rule.<\/p>\n
\u201cBoth sides put on a good case,\u201d said Daniel Hinkle, senior counsel for policy at the American Association for Justice, who attended the oral arguments. \u201cI thought they asked some serious questions and were really grappling with the implications of the case.\u201d<\/p>\n
Bayer has said a favorable supreme court ruling will help it put an end to the litigation. Bayer issued a statement after the supreme court hearing expressing appreciation for the \u201ccourt\u2019s careful consideration of Fifra\u2019s uniformity language and how its federal preemption provision applies to state-based label warnings\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe believe the US government and the company made persuasive arguments that state-based warning claims \u2018in addition to or different from\u2019 warning labels approved by EPA under FIFRA, as in Durnell, are preempted, and this is necessary to avoid a patchwork of 50 different warning labels,\u201d the company said. \u201cCompanies should not be punished under state law for complying with federal label requirements. The security and affordability of the nation\u2019s food supply depend on farmers\u2019 and manufacturers\u2019 ability to rely on the science-based judgments of federal regulators.\u201d<\/p>\n
Both before and during the hearing, protesters affiliated with the Maha movement rallied outside the court to protest against the Trump administration\u2019s support for Monsanto, citing the solicitor general\u2019s backing of Monsanto\u2019s position as well as Trump\u2019s recent executive order declaring protection of glyphosate production a national security issue. Some shouted \u201cpeople over poison\u201d and others waved signs with slogans such as \u201cRoundup the guilty\u201d and \u201cMake Monsanto pay\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s crucial right now to show up and let not just the supreme court know but also our legislative branch and our executive branch that we will not stand for being poisoned \u2026 any more. These companies must have accountability and it starts today,\u201d said Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America and a Maha leader.<\/p>\n
Alexandra Munoz, an independent toxicologist, was also marching with the protesters. \u201cI\u2019ve read the literature on glyphosate and it is definitely a carcinogen. The evidence is really clear.\u201d<\/p>\n
Chellie Pingree, a Democratic US representative from Maine, was among multiple lawmakers joining the rally. \u201cThese are issues I\u2019ve been fighting on for a very long time,\u201d Pingree told the Guardian. \u201cTo have an actual rally in front of the supreme court, to have so many people show up from all over the country and to have so many Republicans and Democrats who are united about keeping poisons out of our food, out of our environment, out of our agriculture system, it\u2019s a big day.\u201d<\/p>\n
A ruling is expected this summer.<\/p>\n
The supreme court hearing comes as the US House of Representatives rules committee takes up the new Farm Bill, formally known as HR 7567, the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026.<\/p>\n
Pingree and Thomas Massie, a Republican representative from Kentucky, last week announced an amendment to the Farm Bill that would remove provisions to shield chemical manufacturers like Bayer from lawsuits and \u201cpreempt state and local warning label laws or usage regulations for potentially harmful products\u201d.<\/p>\n
This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Members of the US supreme court peppered lawyers for the former Monsanto Company with a barrage of questions over pesticide regulation on Monday, wrestling over whether federal law preempts state actions that permit consumers to sue companies for failing to warn of product risks such as cancer. The case, Monsanto v Durnell, centers on glyphosate<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":48808,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[51],"tags":[11618,9015,654,160,6969,3015,448,159,3207,7286],"class_list":{"0":"post-48807","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-health","8":"tag-alleging","9":"tag-blocking","10":"tag-cancer","11":"tag-court","12":"tag-lawsuits","13":"tag-makers","14":"tag-roundup","15":"tag-supreme","16":"tag-weedkiller","17":"tag-weighs"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48807","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=48807"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48807\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/48808"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=48807"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=48807"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=48807"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}