Automated translation by Reuters using machine learning and AI generated content. Please refer to the following disclaimer: https://bit.ly/rtrsauto)
Consumers file lawsuit claiming cancer due to Roundup
Bayer argues that state law actions are preempted by federal law (Revision of the first paragraph, with details from pleadings and comments from judges Roberts and Gorsuch) by Andrew Chung
The U.S. Supreme Court appeared divided on Monday regarding Bayer AG’s attempt to dismiss thousands of lawsuits accusing the company of failing to warn users that the active ingredient in its Roundup herbicide causes cancer.
Judges heard arguments as part of the appeal by the German pharmaceutical and agronomic laboratory against the verdict of a jury in a Missouri state court. The jury awarded $1.25 million to a man named John Durnell, claiming he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of exposure to glyphosate in Roundup.
Paul Clement, representing Bayer, told the judges that the federal law governing pesticides should prevent failure-to-warn complaints, such as Mr. Durnell’s, filed under state legislation, from reaching the courts.
The German company specializing in pharmaceuticals and agricultural sciences stated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had repeatedly concluded that glyphosate does not cause cancer and had 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.
“CRIPPLING LIABILITY”
Mr. Clement warned of the risk of a patchwork of standards across the United States.
“Congress clearly desired 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 U.S., alleging a link to cancer. It stated that a Supreme Court decision in its favor should largely settle the dispute regarding Roundup.
The U.S. law titled 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 label lacks adequate warnings to protect health and the environment.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned Mr. Clement on why state court lawsuits necessarily conflict with the federal regulatory regime.
“If we assume that the EPA can sue you for misleading labeling and seek criminal and civil penalties despite a properly registered product, how would it be inconsistent with FIFRA to allow state civil suits to do the same thing?” Gorsuch asked.
The Republican administration of President Donald Trump has sided with Bayer in this case.
Chief Justice John Roberts asked Sarah Harris, lawyer for the Justice Department defending the administration, if states had legal recourse in case new information on risks emerged while federal regulators considered providing new guidance.
“Throughout this long process, in light of information suggesting an undisclosed risk on the label, can’t states do anything?” Roberts asked.
Ms. Harris highlighted the issue of deviating from a national standard.
“If you had 50 different states all rushing to — Iowa saying it might cause cancer, California saying it definitely causes cancer, another state saying it doesn’t cause cancer at all, and hence asking to add that to the label — that would completely compromise the uniformity of the labeling,” said Ms. Harris.
“I understand that,” Roberts responded. “On the other hand, if it turned out they were right, it might have been a good thing that they had the opportunity to draw attention to this danger while the federal government was going through its process.”
Bayer acquired Roundup as part of its $63 billion acquisition of the agrichemical company Monsanto in 2018. The flood of lawsuits prompted 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.
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
Facing potential liability of billions of 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 settlement would not affect complaints arising from ongoing appeals or not covered by the agreement. These could amount to nearly a billion dollars, it said.
Mr. Durnell’s lawyers stated that despite EPA approval of Roundup, the label could still be challenged for misleading labeling. They also claimed that Mr. Durnell’s claims are not excluded, 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’s lymphoma, a cancer that originates in white blood cells, and attributed his illness to exposure to Roundup since 1996. For about 20 years, he was the “spray boss” for a neighborhood association in St. Louis, clearing weeds in local parks without protective equipment, according to court documents.
A jury sided with Mr. Durnell in 2023, and in 2025, a state appeals court upheld this verdict.
A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by the end of June.
