Bayer AG, parent company of Monsanto, is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in ongoing litigation over its Roundup weedkiller. On April 4, the company filed a petition for \u201ccertiorari,\u201d asking the Court to rule whether federal law regulating pesticides preempts associated state laws related to Roundup labeling.<\/p>\n
The fundamental issue<\/a> is whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state failure-to-warn claims where the Environmental Protection Agency has uniformly found that glyphosate \u2014 the active ingredient in Roundup \u2014 is not carcinogenic.<\/p>\n \u201cWhether FIFRA preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim where EPA has repeatedly concluded that the warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product without EPA approval,\u201d Bayer\u2019s court filing stated.<\/p>\n Bayer argues that state-level lawsuits conflict directly with federal law, since the EPA has not only declined to require a cancer warning<\/a> on Roundup but has warned that adding one would violate the law.<\/p>\n \u201cGiven EPA\u2019s determination that glyphosate is \u2018not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,\u2019 EPA considers any warning that glyphosate is carcinogenic \u2018to constitute a false and misleading statement\u2019 that violates FIFRA\u2019s prohibition against \u2018misbranded\u2019 substances,\u201d Bayer said.<\/p>\n Monsanto has lost multiple jury trials, including a Missouri case in which a jury awarded $1.25 million to plaintiff John Durnell. That case forms the basis of the current petition, which challenges the Missouri Court of Appeals\u2019 February 2025 decision that allowed the verdict to stand.<\/p>\n \u00bbRelated:\u00a0Bayer wins latest trial in Pennsylvania Roundup weedkiller suit<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe jury ultimately found Monsanto not liable on all of Durnell\u2019s claims except his failure-to-warn claim. As for the failure-to-warn claim, the jury found Monsanto liable and awarded Durnell $1.25 million in damages,\u201d reads the lawsuit.\u00a0<\/p>\n Bayer contends that federal preemption should apply because Monsanto could not legally alter the EPA-approved label to include a cancer warning without risking civil or criminal penalties. According to the petition:\u00a0\u201cOnce EPA approves a label, moreover, FIFRA makes it unlawful for a pesticide manufacturer to add additional warnings without EPA\u2019s permission.\u201d<\/p>\n Courts around the country are split on this issue. While the Third Circuit has held that FIFRA preempts such claims, courts in the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits \u2014 and appellate courts in California, Oregon, and Missouri \u2014 have ruled otherwise.<\/p>\n \u201cThe circuits are squarely and irrevocably split not just on the scope of FIFRA preemption in the abstract; they have reached diametrically opposed conclusions in lawsuits involving the exact same product.\u201d<\/p>\n The petition notes the significance of this division:\u00a0\u201cThere is no realistic chance that the split will resolve itself given the Third Circuit\u2019s denial of en banc review. Only this Court can resolve the conflict on this important issue of law.\u201d<\/p>\n Monsanto<\/a> maintains that the continued wave of litigation \u2014 fueled by the International Agency for Research on Cancer\u2019s contentious 2015 classification of glyphosate as \u201cprobably carcinogenic\u201d \u2014 is based on a hazard assessment that EPA and other international regulatory agencies have consistently rejected after reviewing extensive scientific data.<\/p>\n So far, over 100,000 cases<\/a> have been filed seeking to hold Monsanto liable<\/a> based on a supposed link to cancer that the EPA has exhaustively studied and rejected as unfounded. Bayer argues that the practical consequences of the lawsuits extend beyond its own operations:<\/p>\n![\"glyphosate\"](\"https:\/\/www.agdaily.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/fb-roundup-001-mike-mozart.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.agdaily.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/monsanto-durell-high-court-filing.png\")
<\/p>\n