Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court will review a lower court’s decision upholding a $1.25 million verdict against Bayer, Monsanto’s parent company, over claims that its weedkiller Roundup causes cancer.
- The case centers on whether Monsanto failed to warn consumers about the potential cancer risk of Roundup, despite EPA approval of the product’s label without a cancer warning.
- The Justice Department is backing Bayer’s bid to limit Roundup lawsuits, arguing that companies should not be subject to different labeling requirements in 50 states.
- Bayer has already paid billions of dollars settling Roundup lawsuits and is pushing state legislatures to pass legislation shielding it from liability.
- The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to have significant implications for the future of Roundup litigation and the regulation of pesticide labeling.
Introduction to the Case
The Supreme Court has agreed to review a lower court’s decision upholding a $1.25 million verdict against Bayer, Monsanto’s parent company, over claims that its popular weedkiller Roundup causes cancer. The case, Monsanto Company v. Durnell, centers on whether Monsanto failed to warn consumers about the potential cancer risk of Roundup, despite the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approving the product’s label without a cancer warning. The plaintiff, John Durnell, argued that his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was caused by his exposure to Roundup, and that Monsanto should have warned consumers about the potential risks or provided instructions for safe use.
The Legal Arguments
Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, argues that it cannot be held liable for failing to warn consumers about the potential cancer risk of Roundup, as the EPA approved the product’s label without a cancer warning. The company claims that it would have been impossible to change the label without the EPA’s approval, and that doing so would have conflicted with federal law. In contrast, Durnell’s lawyers argue that the company’s advertisements, which marketed Roundup as safe to spray without protective equipment, contributed to his exposure to the weedkiller. The lawyers also point out that the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate, a key ingredient in Roundup, as "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015.
The Implications of the Case
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is expected to have significant implications for the future of Roundup litigation and the regulation of pesticide labeling. If the court rules in favor of Bayer, it could limit the ability of consumers to sue the company over the safety of its products. On the other hand, if the court rules in favor of Durnell, it could open the door to thousands of new lawsuits against Bayer and other companies that manufacture similar products. The case has also sparked a wider debate about the regulation of pesticide labeling and the role of the EPA in ensuring the safety of consumer products. The American Farm Bureau Federation and other agricultural groups have weighed in on the case, arguing that glyphosate is essential to sustaining American farming and that removing it from the market would pose a significant risk to the food supply.
The Role of the Justice Department
The Justice Department has switched its position on the case since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, and is now backing Bayer’s bid to limit Roundup lawsuits. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that the EPA approved the label without a cancer warning, and that Monsanto could not have changed it without the agency’s approval. Sauer also argued that companies should not be subject to different labeling requirements in 50 states, and that the Supreme Court should intervene to establish a uniform standard. The Justice Department’s support for Bayer’s position has been seen as a significant development in the case, and could influence the Supreme Court’s decision.
The Future of Roundup Litigation
Bayer has already paid billions of dollars settling Roundup lawsuits, and is facing over 100,000 additional lawsuits related to the product. The company has pushed state legislatures to pass legislation shielding it from liability, and has stopped using glyphosate in Roundup sold to customers for use on their lawns and gardens. However, the company maintains that glyphosate is safe for people to use, and has argued that the IARC classification was flawed. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is expected to have a significant impact on the future of Roundup litigation, and could determine whether Bayer will be able to contain the costs of the lawsuits. The court is expected to hear oral arguments in the spring, with a decision expected by late June or early July.
