Today, the nation’s highest court ruled that agriculture giant Bayer, which owns RoundupTM manufacturer Monsanto, should be granted a liability shield even when individuals can show they were harmed by Bayer’s pesticide products. This decision removes the only effective tool for individuals to hold pesticide companies accountable when they fail to warn consumers of risks for harm that were known, but not disclosed, by the company. As a result, this ruling allows pesticide manufacturers, like Bayer/Monsanto, to withhold information for potential injury or illness from everyone, including the EPA. This will effectively remove the consequences for misrepresenting their products and give them a license to deceive us when it comes to the dangers that come with the use of and exposure to their pesticides.
In Monsanto v. Durnell, Bayer argued that they should be immune to “failure to warn” lawsuits on the grounds that the language in FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) gives the EPA universal control of approving labels. Their argument was that if the EPA registered Monsanto’s RoundupTM product labels without mentioning cancer risk, that should preempt state or individual rights to sue Monsanto/Bayer for failing to warn about those risks.
In the dissenting opinion, Justice Jackson, argued that “[i]n accepting Monsanto’s argument and holding that Durnell’s failure-to-warn claim is preempted, the Court misunderstands FIFRA’s requirements, misinterprets the scope of FIFRA’s preemption, and ultimately leaves Durnell without a remedy for the significant harms he has suffered.”
FIFRA was always meant to set the minimum requirements for pesticide labeling and was not intended to absolve pesticide manufacturers of accountability or their responsibility to protect the public from harmful effects they knew existed. But this decision does just that, even though internal documents revealed that Monsanto knew RoundupTM may increase risk of cancer and that they sought to conceal that information. Further, FIFRA was not written to prohibit states from setting stronger labeling requirements when they so choose. But this decision also sees FIFRA and EPA’s use label as being able to preempt states from doing so.
“This shameful ruling deals a monumental setback to the people and families impacted by pesticide related illness,” PAN Organizing Lead Cristobal Lagunas said. “SCOTUS has sided with a billion-dollar corporation and conveyed that the farmers, farmworkers, people and communities harmed by pesticides don’t deserve to hold corporations accountable for the harm they cause. This decision creates a crisis of public health and casts a dark cloud over the agricultural industry and the people who work tirelessly to keep America fed. While today is difficult, we know and deeply believe that a change in our systems is still possible and that farmers, farmworkers, and the movement that supports them will continue to write this story. We will continue to work toward a future where people are fed, healthy, and prosperous.”
Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the United States—so widely used that it is found in the bodies of most Americans. Whether glyphosate causes cancer is not in question; the science is clear that it does. The International Agency for Research on Cancer at the WHO determined that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen in 2015. But even though there is a growing body of research that confirms that glyphosate can cause cancer, EPA has declined to acknowledge this at the federal level. Because of this, some states have opted to enact further regulations and labeling requirements to try to better protect consumers from carcinogens.
But today, the court ruled that FIFRA and the EPA pesticide use label is the final, and only, word for pesticide registration even if the use label is inaccurate. The court left no recourse for individuals who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using RoundupTM. The Court ignored what the jury trials and successful lawsuits revealed. The science EPA used to approve labels for RoundupTM heavily relied upon industry-funded studies. Internal Monsanto documents showed that employees ghostwrote scientific studies, the company sought to influence regulatory assessments and they downplayed or disputed evidence of glyphosate’s cancer risks. These revelations illustrate the importance of the court discovery processes when people are allowed to sue, and reaffirm the importance of objective, third-party scientific review of pesticide registration.
“This ruling is extremely disappointing and shows a profound misunderstanding of the pesticide registration labeling processes and the importance of the state courts as a tool to hold pesticide companies accountable for harm,” said PAN’s Communications Manager and Iowa farmer Rob Faux. “Moving forward, we need to work together to push legislation forward that will address the increasing risk of harm due to existing and future pesticides products. The EPA must rededicate themselves to seeking to protect the public from harm from pesticides and seek to aggressively remove or further restrict registrations for dangerous products.”
Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network condemns the Court for refusing to hold Monsanto accountable and revoking the public’s right to sue and the rights of states to protect their citizens. We call on EPA to enact stronger protections for pesticide registration that ensure the agency is not relying on industry-funded research to approve pesticides. EPA must ensure that products are rigorously tested to be safe for those who apply them and the consumers who eat food grown with pesticides.
Similarly, we call on Congress to remedy this situation. If FIFRA is the only way we can protect people from the harmful effects of pesticides, we must revise it to be sure that it is comprehensive and impactful. If the Supreme Court is unable to understand the intent and function of the law as it stands, then it needs to be revised so its purpose to protect people and not international pesticide companies is clear and incontrovertible.
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling means that people cannot sue pesticide corporations for the health harms of their products when the EPA labels the pesticide as “safe”. This is a blatant disregard for the rigged rules that currently allow labeling to be heavily influenced by pesticide corporations, using studies submitted by pesticide corporations,” Allison Davis, Executive Director of PAN, reflected. “When citizens sue, critical and independent science is revealed to the public. We call on Congress to immediately reform the law and address blatant conflicts of interest in pesticide labeling and to allow citizens their day in court.”
