U.S. Supreme Court has backed Bayer,maker of Roundup weedkiller,blocking lawsuits claiming product causes cancer. Decision Thursday followed a case from Missouri where a man said his non-Hodgkin lymphoma came from Roundup's glyphosate .
In 7-2 vote,justices ruled federal rules trump state failure-to-warn suits. This overturned a jury award of $1.25 million to John Durnell,who argued Bayer didn't warn users of glyphosate's cancer risks. Opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted EPA hasn't required cancer warning for Roundup,saying label follows federal law .
Bayer's stock jumped 18% after the ruling. Investors see legal boost . Court's decision aligns with Trump administration's stance,but complicates politics as some allies push for less pesticide use.
Kavanaugh pointed out that allowing Durnell's claim would clash with federal law,which doesn't mandate a cancer warning . “The law preempts Durnell’s claim because it would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label even though federal law requires Monsanto to use EPA-approved label without a cancer warning.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson,with Neil Gorsuch,dissented,arguing Durnell's claim shouldn't be preempted, saying it imposes labeling consistent with federal law. Jackson called it “remarkable and regrettable,” claiming it restricts legal options for plaintiffs like Durnell.
Since Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion,company's been hit by over 100,000 lawsuits alleging cancer links to Roundup . Bayer already pulled glyphosate from consumer versions . Before Supreme Court's decision,Bayer suggested a $7.25 billion settlement for lawsuits,excluding those under appeal or outside the deal.
Environmentalists slammed ruling,accusing the court of favoring corporate interests over health. Tarah Heinzen,legal director at Food and Water Watch,called it a “disaster for public health,” while Kelly Ryerson,from American Regeneration,warned it could worsen glyphosate-related health issues.
The legal fight revolves around Federal Insecticide,Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),which governs pesticide labels and stops states from adding rules. Bayer argues Durnell's claims are blocked by this law,as EPA has approved Roundup labels without cancer warnings,meaning it's not misbranded.
Despite Supreme Court's ruling,Durnell's lawyers say the label might still be challenged as misbranded. They argue Missouri law,requiring warnings on product dangers,aligns with FIFRA's misbranding ban.
Market watchers see ruling as key moment for Bayer. Markus Manns,fund manager at Union Investment,said decision ushers in new era for company,noting lawsuits might continue but will be tougher . A successful settlement acceptance could strengthen Bayer's focus on core business…
