WASHINGTON, D.C. – A coalition of consumer, public health, sustainable agriculture, and conservation organizations represented by Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case Monsanto v. Durnell yesterday explaining why state efforts to warn the public about pesticides’ health hazards must not be eliminated. For the past decade, state juries across the country have found Monsanto (now Bayer) guilty of failing to warn the public of the cancer risks of its flagship pesticide, Roundup, totaling billions of dollars in damages against the chemical giant. Monsanto is now using the Supreme Court case to seek immunity from any accountability for these harms.

Monsanto claims the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) safety review is sufficiently protective, but in a 2022 CFS case a federal court struck down EPA’s review of glyphosate (the active ingredient of Roundup), as contrary to law and core cancer safety standards.

“Monsanto’s self-interested desire that it and EPA be the sole arbiters of pesticides’ safety would vitiate the long tradition of cooperative federal-state roles in protecting the public health,” said George Kimbrell, Legal Director at Center for Food Safety. “Their position seeking to escape accountability for their toxic products is wrong every possible way: legally, scientifically, and factually.”

Pesticide exposure can lead to harms such as cancer, neurological or immunological conditions, reproductive dysfunction, and other chronic illnesses. If states are prohibited from warning consumers, only EPA would be empowered to do so, but two new comprehensive studies released earlier this week by some of the same organizations filing the brief found that EPA has frequently approved pesticides that it determines carry cancer risks, yet virtually never requires a warning label on them.

Food & Water Watch Legal Director Tarah Heinzen said:

“Industrial agriculture’s pesticide addiction is poisoning America, and EPA’s lax pesticide program is greasing the wheels. The agency has repeatedly catered to agrichemical corporations at the expense of public health. The Supreme Court must affirm that states have the right to intervene where EPA falls short and ensure their citizens unobstructed access to justice. Cancer patients who believe they were wrongly exposed to harmful pesticides deserve their day in court — period.”

“The science is clear: cancer-causing chemicals in our food, consumer products, and environment are driving rising rates of breast cancer,” said Janet Nudelman, Senior Director of Program and Policy at Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. “People have an absolute right to know when these same chemicals are in their weed killer and migrating into their food and then into their bodies. And the companies making these dangerous products have the responsibility to tell them. Yet Monsanto wants to strip states of the power to warn the public and workers about these unsafe exposures. That’s not just legally wrong — it’s dishonest and a betrayal of every person who has ever been diagnosed with cancer and never knew why.”

“Farmers and farmworkers are on the frontlines of our food system,” said Lorette Picciano, executive director of Rural Coalition. “They have the right to be protected from dangerous chemicals that cause cancer, reproductive harms, and even autoimmune diseases while they do their jobs to put food on our tables.”

“With this case, Bayer/Monsanto seeks to undermine a foundational principle of law and commerce—that people using hazardous pesticides linked to cancer and other illness must be warned on product labels,” said Jay Feldman, executive of Beyond Pesticides. “The company wants to reverse billions of dollars in jury verdicts to victims of devastating illness by hiding behind weak regulatory standards advanced by the chemical industry that put its profits ahead of people’s health, despite safer, cost-effective alternatives.”

In their filing to the Court, the nonprofits make three major points. First, Monsanto’s heavy reliance on EPA is misplaced because glyphosate’s registration decision was struck down in another court case specifically for violating core cancer safety standards, among other reasons. Second, EPA’s oversight of pesticides generally is the antithesis of the rosy picture Monsanto paints: in reality, it is rife with loopholes, limitations, data gaps, delays, and lack of enforcement, making additional state enforcement vital. And third, new studies conducted show that even when EPA admits pesticides are linked to cancer risks, it still approves them and fails to label them with warnings for users.

Represented by legal counsel from the Center for Food Safety, the Amici groups include: Center for Food Safety, Consumer Federation of America, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Rural Coalition, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Center for Biological Diversity, Beyond Pesticides, and Food & Water Watch.

Background

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, is the most widely used pesticide in the United States. Its use has increased exponentially since the 1990s, when Monsanto released its genetically engineered (GE) “Roundup Ready” crops resistant to glyphosate. Today, 280 million pounds of glyphosate are sprayed annually on 298 million acres of U.S. farmland—an area the size of nearly three Californias. Over 21 million more pounds are sprayed by homeowners, on roadways, in forestry, and for other non-agricultural uses. Because of this extremely intensive use, glyphosate is found regularly in food, soil, air, water, and human bodies.

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on evidence of cancer in both humans and animals. Since then, juries in multiple cases have ruled that Monsanto failed to warn people that Roundup could cause cancer, and that the herbicide was a major factor leading to their non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Approximately 100,000 more such cases were settled by Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2018) for roughly $10 billion. Other NHL cancer victims continue to sue, with approximately 61,000 cases still pending. Earlier this year, Bayer proposed a $7.25 billion settlement in an attempt to resolve pending lawsuits.

In 2020 EPA issued a long-overdue registration review for glyphosate which concluded that it was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” and that it posed “no risks to human health.” CFS, representing farmworkers, farmers, and conservationists, challenged the decision. In 2022, a federal court held EPA’s decision unlawful, explaining how it was contrary to EPA’s own core cancer science standards in multiple ways, and struck it down.

Although Monsanto v. Durnell is just one of the thousands of pending NHL cancer cases, the result of this Supreme Court case could shield Monsanto from any future liability from similar lawsuits. Oral arguments in the case will be heard on April 27th, with a decision issued by the end of June.