Can Monsanto, the manufacturer of the popular weedkiller Roundup, be held responsible for failing to apply a cancer warning to its label? That’s the question at the heart of arguments heard by the Supreme Court yesterday that could decide the future of the agriculture industry, the fate of settlements in pending lawsuits, and the outcome of the midterm elections. (So, you know, not that big of a deal.) The justices reportedly asked the company’s lawyers tough questions but didn’t tip their hand on how they might ultimately rule. The case boils down to federal vs. state authority: - The EPA has never deemed the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, cancer-causing. Bayer, which bought Monsanto in 2018, says that means Roundup doesn’t need the warning label required by state laws.
- However, the World Health Organization found a link between glyphosate and cancer in 2015, prompting a wave of suits against the company.
There are thousands of legal cases against Bayer over Roundup, but the one before the high court involves John Durnell, who claims decades of using Roundup resulted in his blood cancer. In 2023, a Missouri jury awarded Durnell $1.25 million, and Bayer is appealing. A decision is expected by June. A favorable ruling from SCOTUS on the Durnell case would limit Bayer’s liability in current and future lawsuits, as would the $7.25 billion class-action settlement proposed by the company in February. Glyphosate saves farmers $21 billion annually, according to SCOTUS Blog, and is the most widely used herbicide in the US. CEO Bill Anderson said Bayer may stop selling Roundup due to lawsuits that he considers an “existential” threat to farmers. The MAHA quandary: The Trump administration is defending Bayer and supporting a farm bill that includes new protections for glyphosate, rankling MAHA advocates who helped Trump get elected in 2024. Some protested outside the court yesterday, and one wellness influencer told CNN that glyphosate “is going to be a midterm issue” in November.—DL |