Supreme Court limits Roundup cancer suits against Bayer's Monsanto
Glyphosate, used in Roundup weedkiller, is the most commonly utilized herbicide in agriculture, and it has long been linked to cancer claims.
TL;DR
- The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Bayer cannot be sued over state-level claims regarding cancer risks associated with Roundup and glyphosate.
- The decision supports the argument that federal law governing pesticides preempts state-level failure-to-warn claims.
- This ruling is considered a major victory for Bayer, which acquired Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, in 2018.
- The decision is also seen as a win for the Trump administration, which backed the preemption argument.
- Groups like Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) view the ruling as a significant setback and a betrayal of health concerns.
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, stating that EPA's stance on glyphosate's safety and lack of required cancer warning labels means federal law preempts state claims.
- Bayer celebrated the decision, stating it provides regulatory clarity and should help contain Roundup litigation.
- The case involved a specific claim from John Durnell, who alleged his cancer was caused by glyphosate exposure and was awarded damages, which the Supreme Court reversed.
- The ruling is expected to impact numerous other failure-to-warn cases against Bayer.
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, arguing the majority departed from other courts' views and that the failure-to-warn claim aligns with federal requirements.
- The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer previously found glyphosate "probably carcinogenic to humans."