Live Feeds
● LIVE Updated 1d ago · 23 sources tracked

Supreme Court ruling on Roundup points to a confusing difference between the law and science

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Monsanto v. Durnell that federal pesticide law preempts state claims requiring cancer warnings on Roundup labels. This decision prevents states from requiring warnings beyond those approved by the EPA. The ruling is expected to block thousands of pending lawsuits against Bayer.

RSS Source map (23)

What changed

The Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling limiting liability for Roundup's manufacturer regarding pesticide labeling.

Live updates

  1. Supreme Court Blocks Roundup Lawsuits Over Cancer Warnings

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Monsanto v. Durnell that federal pesticide law preempts state claims requiring cancer warnings on Roundup labels. This decision prevents states from requiring warnings beyond those approved by the EPA. The ruling is expected to block thousands of pending lawsuits against Bayer.

    What's confirmed:

    • The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Roundup's maker.
    • Federal pesticide law preempts state failure-to-warn claims regarding Roundup labels.
    • States cannot require pesticide manufacturers to add warnings beyond those approved by the EPA.
    • The decision is expected to block thousands of lawsuits claiming Roundup should have carried a cancer warning.
    • The legal ruling does not answer the scientific question of causation.

    Still unconfirmed:

    • The ruling could impact hundreds of Tennessee lawsuits.
    • The ruling raises stakes in the Iowa governor race.
    • Marjorie Taylor Greene described the victory for Bayer as "awful" for cancer patients.
    • MAHA feels betrayed by the ruling.
    confidence 100%