The Supreme Court Weighs in on Roundup Label Dispute
In a significant legal battle, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently deliberating over the labeling requirements for the widely used Roundup weed killer, which has been linked to cancer by numerous plaintiffs. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for thousands of lawsuits against Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, now owned by Bayer.
The crux of the case is whether the responsibility for warning labels on chemical products should rest with the federal government, individual states, or juries.
The dispute was brought to the forefront by John Durnell, who initiated a lawsuit against Monsanto in 2019, claiming that his prolonged use of Roundup resulted in his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Durnell, who regularly applied the herbicide in his neighborhood, was awarded over $1 million in damages by a jury that found Monsanto had not adequately warned users of the potential risks.
Under Missouri law, the sale of dangerous pesticides without “adequate warning” is prohibited. Durnell’s attorney, Ashley Keller, emphasized that the decision-making power should lie with juries.
Monsanto, however, contends that such lawsuits should be preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which mandates that pesticide manufacturers, like Monsanto, must register their products with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before they can be sold. The EPA also approves the labels for these products.
Paul Clement, representing Monsanto, argued for a consistent national standard, stating, “It’s probably the most studied herbicide in the history of man, and they’ve all reached the conclusion… that there isn’t a risk here.”
The Supreme Court’s role is not to determine whether glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, causes cancer. Instead, the justices will decide whether states can impose their labeling requirements after EPA approval.
The current U.S. solicitor general supports Monsanto’s stance, with principal deputy Sarah Harris asserting that the EPA’s authority should supersede state laws.
Several justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, seemed to favor Monsanto’s argument for a national standard, while others, like Chief Justice John Roberts, expressed concerns about the federal government’s potential slow response to new safety information.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson highlighted the time gap between EPA reviews, noting, “There’s a 15-year window… and lots of things can happen in science.”
Currently, Bayer limits the sale of glyphosate-containing Roundup to farmers and businesses. The company is also actively working to settle numerous residential claims to mitigate ongoing legal expenses.
Be First to Comment