Automated Translation by Reuters using machine learning and AI advisory: https://bit.ly/rtrsauto
Consumers are suing for cancer they attribute to Roundup.
Bayer claims that actions under state law are preempted by federal law. (Rephrasing of the first paragraph, adding details from arguments and comments by Judges Roberts and Gorsuch) by Andrew Chung
The U.S. Supreme Court appeared divided on Monday regarding Bayer AG’s attempt to end thousands of lawsuits accusing the company of not warning users that the active ingredient in its herbicide Roundup causes cancer.
Judges heard arguments as part of the appeal brought by the German pharmaceutical and agricultural laboratory against the verdict of a jury in a Missouri state court, which awarded $1.25 million to a man named John Durnell, claiming to have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of exposure to glyphosate in Roundup.
Paul Clement, arguing for Bayer, told the judges that federal law governing pesticides should prevent failure-to-warn complaints, such as that of Mr. Durnell, filed under state legislation, from reaching the courts.
The German company specializing in pharmaceutical and agricultural products stated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had repeatedly concluded that glyphosate does not cause cancer and approved the labels of its products without warnings.
“A Missouri jury imposed a cancer warning requirement that the EPA does not require. This additional requirement is preempted,” said Mr. Clement.
“A CRIPPLING RESPONSIBILITY”
Mr. Clement warned of the risk of developing a patchwork of standards across the United States.
“Congress clearly wanted uniformity in terms of safety warnings on a pesticide label. Ignoring Congress’s clear directive in this regard would lead to crippling liability and harm the interests of farmers whose livelihoods depend on federally approved pesticides,” Mr. Clement said.
According to the company, over 100,000 plaintiffs have filed actions in federal and state courts in the United States, alleging a link to cancer. It stated that a Supreme Court decision in its favor should largely end the litigation concerning Roundup.
An American law known as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, governs the sale and labeling of pesticides and prohibits states from imposing different or additional requirements. It prohibits “misbranded” pesticides, meaning those whose labels do not contain adequate warnings to protect health and the environment.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned Mr. Clement on why state court lawsuits are necessarily in conflict with the federal regulatory regime.
“If we assume that the EPA can sue you for misleading labeling and demand criminal and civil penalties despite a properly registered product, how would it be incompatible with FIFRA to allow civil lawsuits at the state level to do the same thing?” Gorsuch asked.
The administration of Republican President Donald Trump sided with Bayer in this case.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts asked Sarah Harris, an attorney from the Justice Department defending the administration, if states had legal recourse if new risk information emerged while federal regulators assessed whether to provide new guidance.
“Throughout this long process, faced with information suggesting the existence of an undisclosed risk on the label, can states do nothing?” Roberts asked.
Mrs. Harris highlighted the problem of departing from a national standard.
“If you had 50 different states all rushing to—Iowa saying this might cause cancer, California saying it absolutely causes cancer, another state saying it doesn’t cause cancer at all, and therefore requests to add that to the label, that would completely compromise the uniformity of labeling,” said Mrs. Harris.
“I understand that,” Roberts replied. “On the other hand, if it turns out they were right, it might have been a good thing that they had the chance to draw attention to this danger while the federal government went through its process.”
Bayer acquired Roundup as part of its $63 billion acquisition of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018. The flood of lawsuits pushed Bayer to remove glyphosate from its consumer version of Roundup, and the company stated that these lawsuits could threaten its ability to provide the herbicide to farmers.
A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
Facing potential liability of several billion dollars, Bayer announced in February a $7.25 billion settlement proposal to resolve tens of thousands of current and future lawsuits. According to the company, this agreement would not impact complaints arising from ongoing appeals or not covered by the settlement. These could amount to nearly a billion dollars, they specified.
Mr. Durnell’s lawyers stated that despite EPA approval of Roundup, the label could still be challenged for misleading labeling. They also argued that Mr. Durnell’s claims are not dismissed, as the Missouri state law, which requires products to adequately warn of dangers, imposes the same requirements as the prohibition of misleading labeling under FIFRA.
Mr. Durnell was diagnosed with a rare and often aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer that originates in white blood cells, and attributed his disease to his exposure to Roundup since 1996. For about 20 years, he was the “spray boss” for a neighborhood association in St. Louis, removing weeds in local parks without protective equipment, according to court documents.
A jury ruled in Mr. Durnell’s favor in 2023, and in 2025, a state appeals court upheld the verdict.
A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by the end of June.
