WASHINGTON — The nation’s highest court appeared split Monday during arguments over whether thousands of cancer-related lawsuits against Roundup’s manufacturer should be blocked.
The legal battle reached the Supreme Court following an avalanche of court cases that resulted in some billion-dollar judgments against Bayer, the global chemical giant that acquired Monsanto, Roundup’s original producer.
Some justices appeared to support Bayer’s position that state-level lawsuits should be prohibited since federal authorities have concluded Roundup probably does not cause cancer. However, other justices questioned lawyers about whether this approach improperly prevents states from adapting to evolving scientific studies.
Monsanto has support from the Trump administration, creating tension with certain Make America Healthy Again advocates who seek stricter pesticide regulations.
The opposing side includes John Durnell from Missouri, whose legal case claims he contracted non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma following more than two decades as his neighborhood’s designated “spray guy,” applying Roundup in parks throughout his historic St. Louis area.
A jury determined the corporation failed to adequately warn him about potential cancer risks and granted him $1.25 million in damages. His case represents one among thousands of similar legal actions, some resulting in multi-billion dollar compensation awards.
Scientific disagreement continues regarding cancer risks and glyphosate, Roundup’s primary component. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer labeled the substance as “probably carcinogenic,” while the Environmental Protection Agency has concluded it likely poses no cancer risk to humans when properly used.
The EPA approved labeling without cancer warnings, and Bayer contends it must comply with federal requirements rather than state regulations under which Durnell and others have filed suit.
Attorneys representing Durnell argue that federal regulations do not prevent Bayer from including more comprehensive warnings on products as required by state laws.
While Bayer contests the cancer allegations, the company has allocated $16 billion for case settlements and proposed a comprehensive settlement this year. Simultaneously, it has lobbied states to enact legislation preventing new lawsuits, with several states complying.
Bayer has confronted over 100,000 Roundup-related claims, primarily from residential users. The company has eliminated glyphosate from Roundup products sold to U.S. homeowners and gardeners. Company officials indicate they may need to withdraw glyphosate from American agricultural markets if litigation continues.
Agricultural producers associated with the Modern Ag Alliance, an organization established by Bayer, express concern this could damage the farming sector during an already challenging period.
Environmental organizations claim Bayer seeks to exclude juries from lawsuits due to its defeats in state courts.
Pesticide issues have created divisions between the administration and supporters of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s MAHA movement, who also opposed an executive order designed to increase glyphosate production.
Kennedy has consistently stated that glyphosate causes cancer, while acknowledging the executive order was essential for food security and national defense purposes.
Dozens of MAHA activists and supporters gathered Monday outside the Supreme Court for their “People vs. Poison” demonstration to oppose Monsanto’s attempts to avoid legal accountability.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is anticipated by late June.
