US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Former Monsanto Company in Pesticide Case

The Supreme Court's Ruling on Pesticide Liability

The US supreme court has ruled in favor of the former Monsanto company in a closely watched case that limits the way for people to sue pesticide companies for alleged illnesses or injuries.

The Case: Monsanto v Durnell

The case, Monsanto v Durnell, specifically dealt with the question of whether a federal law that gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory authority over pesticides preempts state claims that a company failed to warn users of certain product risks when the EPA itself has not required such warnings.

The Impact on Pesticide Manufacturers

In its ruling, the court said the EPA controls pesticide labels to ensure nationwide uniformity, and because the agency evaluated Roundup and decided a cancer warning was unnecessary, state-level lawsuits demanding such a warning conflict with federal law. This decision impacts thousands of lawsuits pending against Monsanto and other pesticide makers, including Syngenta.

The Science Behind Glyphosate

The chemical at the heart of the decision deals with Monsanto's glyphosate – a weedkilling chemical used in the popular Roundup brand and numerous other herbicide products sold by the former Monsanto company, which is now owned by Germany's Bayer. 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.

The Future of Pesticide Litigation

The court's decision means the failure-to-warn claims included in several thousand lawsuits pending against Monsanto cannot go forward. Similarly, thousands of such claims pending against pesticide maker Syngenta cannot proceed. Bayer maintains that its products don't cause cancer, and also asserts that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (Fifra), the EPA is the key authority for determining if its product necessitated a cancer warning.