The Supreme Court has ruled that federal pesticide labeling law preempts certain state failure‑to‑warn claims involving Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller.
In a 7 to 2 decision, the Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) labeling requirements control whether a pesticide must carry a cancer warning. The ruling reverses a Missouri jury’s 1.25 million dollar verdict in favor of John Durnell, who alleged that long‑term Roundup use caused his non‑Hodgkin lymphoma. Durnell had argued that Monsanto should have warned that glyphosate is carcinogenic. EPA has repeatedly found glyphosate “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” when used as directed and has declined to add a cancer warning.
Agricultural groups welcomed the decision, saying it confirms a uniform, federal, science‑based labeling system for pesticides.
Health, environmental and shareholder advocacy groups, however, criticized the outcome. They say the decision eliminates many pending state‑level claims against Bayer and limits the ability of injured consumers to seek relief under state failure‑to‑warn laws. Plaintiffs’ attorneys also note that the ruling applies to label‑based failure‑to‑warn claims but does not bar other theories, such as claims based on advertising or marketing statements or design defect allegations.
Source Material:
The Hagstrom Report: Supreme Court Sides with Bayer, Farm Groups on Roundup
The Wall Street Journal: Bayer Gets New Life After Supreme Court's Roundup Ruling
The Hill: MAHA feels betrayed after Supreme Court ruling on Monsanto, glyphosate
AgWeb: Monsanto Seeks Duties on Chinese Glyphosate, Drawing Pushback From Farm Groups
Agri-Pulse: Monsanto's path to 'significant' containment of litigation may be bumpy