Weedkiller Monsanto saw a victory at the Supreme Court when the justices ruled 7-2 that the company is not liable for its product Roundup. The case surrounds a man, John Durnell, who was diagnosed with cancer after being exposed to Roundup.
Monsanto argued that under federal law, the EPA approved glyphosate’s use and has not required further labeling detailing possible cancer risks.
“Durnell’s state tort claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label even though federal law requires Monsanto to use the EPA-approved label without a cancer warning,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. “Because Durnell’s state tort claim would impose a pesticide labeling requirement ‘in addition to or different from’ the label required by EPA, FIFRA expressly preempts Durnell’s claim.”
“All told, in accordance with EPA’s view that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer in humans, EPA has not required glyphosate-based pesticides like Roundup to include a cancer warning on their labels,” the rulings adds. “Therefore, as a matter of federal law, Monsanto legally must use a label without a cancer warning unless and until EPA approves or requires a change.”
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. “Ultimately, the effect of the majority’s interpretation is both remarkable and regrettable, for it unjustifiably closes the courthouse doors to state tort plaintiffs like Durnell,” Jackson wrote.
Bayer, the parent company of Monsanto, asked the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling in April. Solicitor General John Sauer also filed a brief in support of Bayer, writing, “EPA has repeatedly determined that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans, and the agency has repeatedly approved Roundup labels that did not contain cancer warnings.” He noted that “a jury may second-guess the agency’s science-based judgments and hold petitioner liable for failing to provide warnings ‘in addition to or different from those required under.’”
