The US supreme court will hear arguments in a key pesticide regulation case on Monday, setting the stage for a ruling that could weaken the ability of consumers to sue companies for failing to warn of product risks.
The case centers on glyphosate – a weed-killing chemical used in the popular Roundup brand and numerous other herbicide products. The chemical has been scientifically linked to cancer in multiple studies, and was classified a probable human carcinogen by an arm of the World Health Organization in 2015.
Monsanto, the company that introduced glyphosate to the world in the 1970s and is now a part of the German conglomerate Bayer, has spent the last decade fighting more than 100,000 lawsuits claiming it failed to warn customers of cancer risks.
While maintaining that its products don’t cause cancer, Monsanto is asking the supreme court to rule that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (Fifra), it cannot be held liable for failing to warn of a cancer risk if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not found such a risk exists and not required such a warning. The EPA’s position is that glyphosate is “unlikely” to be carcinogenic.
Bayer has said a favorable supreme court ruling will help it put an end to the litigation. Backing Monsanto’s case is Syngenta, a Chinese-owned company that is similarly being sued by thousands of people around the US who allege the company failed to warn them of research linking Syngenta’s paraquat herbicide products to Parkinson’s disease.
In addition to Monsanto and Syngenta, future cases against other pesticide makers could similarly be limited, according to legal experts.
Lawrence Ebner, general counsel for the Atlantic Legal Foundation, which is backing Monsanto, said in a briefing ahead of the court hearing that consumers could be misled by unneeded warnings. “If you have a pesticide label with a zillion different warnings, how is the user supposed to know the ones that really matter, the ones that EPA really has … determined are necessary?” he said
In contrast, Jim Jones, who served as assistant administrator for EPA’s office of chemical safety and pollution prevention under Barack Obama, said in an interview that states play an important and complementary role in regulating pesticides and determining what types of warnings are warranted. “It’s the perspective I’ve held throughout my career at EPA. I think it is the correct one.”
Jones is among a group of former EPA officials who filed an amici brief arguing against Monsanto’s position.
The high-profile case is exposing a growing divide between the Trump administration and grassroots members of the “Make America healthy again” (Maha) movement.
Donald Trump’s solicitor general will be delivering oral arguments to the court favoring Monsanto while a Maha-led rally outside the courthouse on Monday has been organized to protest against the company. In addition to supporting Monsanto in court, Trump issued an executive order in February seeking to protect the production of glyphosate herbicides.
“The Trump administration should know that siding with Bayer over American families is a losing position,” said Vani Hari, a leading health advocate and organizer of the People v Poison rally. “People expect leadership that puts their health first – not policies that protect corporations from being held responsible,” she said.
This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group
