The Supreme Court appeared divided on Monday over whether to halt thousands of lawsuits alleging that the manufacturer of the weedkiller Roundup failed to warn consumers about potential cancer risks. The case arises from a surge of litigation that has resulted in multibillion-dollar verdicts against Bayer, the global agrochemical giant that owns Monsanto, the original maker of Roundup.
Federal vs. State Authority
Several justices expressed sympathy for Bayer's argument that it cannot be sued under state law because federal regulators have determined that Roundup is unlikely to cause cancer. However, other justices questioned whether this interpretation would prevent states from adapting to new scientific evidence. The Trump administration has backed Monsanto, a stance that conflicts with some allies in the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, which seeks to reduce pesticide use.
The Plaintiff's Case
On the opposing side is John Durnell, a Missouri man who developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after serving as his neighborhood association's designated sprayer for over 20 years, applying Roundup to parks in his historic St. Louis community. A jury found that the company failed to warn him about potential cancer risks and awarded him $1.25 million. His case is among thousands, including some that resulted in multibillion-dollar damages.
Scientific Dispute
The debate over Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, remains intense. In 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic." However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that it is not likely to cause cancer in humans when used according to directions. The EPA approved a label without a cancer warning, and Bayer argues that it must adhere to these federal standards, not state laws under which Durnell and others have sued.
Durnell's lawyers counter that federal law does not prohibit Bayer from including a more comprehensive warning under state law. Bayer denies the cancer claims but has set aside $16 billion to settle cases and proposed a major settlement earlier this year. Simultaneously, it has lobbied states to pass laws barring new cases, with some success.
Scope of Litigation
Bayer has faced over 100,000 Roundup claims, predominantly from residential users. The company has ceased using glyphosate in Roundup sold for U.S. residential lawn and garden use. Bayer has indicated that it may need to consider removing glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if lawsuits persist.
Farmers associated with the Modern Ag Alliance, a group founded by Bayer, express concern that such a move could harm the agricultural industry, which is already under strain. Environmental groups counter that Bayer seeks to avoid juries because of its losses in state courts.
Political Divisions
Pesticides have created a rift between the administration and members of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's MAHA movement, who were also displeased with an executive order aimed at boosting glyphosate production. Kennedy has repeatedly stated that glyphosate causes cancer, while acknowledging that the executive order was necessary for food supply and national security.
On Monday, dozens of MAHA activists and supporters gathered outside the Supreme Court for a "People vs. Poison" rally, denouncing Monsanto's efforts to shield itself from lawsuits. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision by the end of June.
