Supreme Court Weighs In on Roundup Label Dispute Amidst Cancer Claims
The U.S. Supreme Court is deliberating a pivotal case about the labeling of Roundup, a widely used weed killer. Many individuals attribute their cancer diagnoses to the product, sparking extensive legal battles.
This case could set a precedent for numerous lawsuits against Monsanto, the creator of Roundup, now owned by Bayer. At the heart of the case is the debate over who should be responsible for warning labels: federal authorities, individual states, or juries.
John Durnell, the central figure in this case, filed a lawsuit against Monsanto in Missouri state court in 2019. He claims his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a result of two decades of exposure to glyphosate, a key ingredient in Roundup, which he regularly applied in his neighborhood.
A jury sided with Durnell, concluding that Monsanto had not adequately warned users of the potential risks, awarding him over $1 million in damages.
According to Missouri law, pesticides without “adequate warning” cannot be sold, as noted by Durnell’s attorney, Ashley Keller. She argues that such issues should be left to the discretion of juries.
Durnell is one of many individuals who have taken legal action, with varying outcomes in lower courts.
Monsanto contends that these claims are overridden by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which mandates that pesticides be registered with the EPA before market release. Monsanto complied with this, and the EPA also approved the product’s labels.
Paul Clement, representing Monsanto, emphasized the necessity of maintaining a consistent national standard. “It’s probably the most like studied herbicide in the history of man and they’ve all reached the conclusion, based on more data and the kind of expert analysis they can do, that there isn’t a risk here,” he stated in court. “You shouldn’t let a single Missouri jury second guess that judgment.”
The court will not rule on whether glyphosate is carcinogenic. Instead, the focus is on determining the authority over warning labels and the potential role of states following the EPA’s evaluation.
The U.S. solicitor general’s office supports Monsanto’s stance. Sarah Harris, the principal deputy, stated, “Missouri thus requires adding cancer warnings but federal law requires EPA to approve new warnings and tasks EPA with deciding what label changes would mitigate any health risks. State law must give way.”
Some justices, like Brett Kavanaugh, seem to agree with the need for a national standard, while others, such as Chief Justice John Roberts, expressed concerns about the federal government’s reaction time compared to state actions. “Well, it does undermine the uniformity,” Roberts remarked. “On the other hand, if it turns out they were right, it might have been good if they had an opportunity to do something, to call this danger to the attention of people while the federal government was going through its process.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised questions about the impact of evolving scientific research and the EPA’s review process. “There’s a 15-year window between when that product has to be re-registered again and lots of things can happen in science, in terms of development about the product,” she noted.
Bayer, now the owner of Monsanto, restricts the sale of glyphosate-containing Roundup to commercial entities. The company is actively working to settle numerous residential claims to mitigate ongoing legal expenses.
