“`html
Supreme Court to Hear Monsanto’s Appeal in Roundup Cancer Cases
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court announced on friday it will hear Monsanto’s claim that it should be shielded from tens of thousands of lawsuits over its weed killer Roundup, because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not required a warning label indicating it may cause cancer. The court’s decision sets the stage for a landmark case concerning federal preemption of state law in product liability suits.
The Core of the Dispute
The justices will not directly rule on whether Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, causes cancer – a debate that has spanned decades. While some studies have identified glyphosate as a likely carcinogen (IARC, 2018), others have concluded it does not pose a meaningful cancer risk to humans (EFSA,2015). Instead, the court will focus on whether federal law protects monsanto (now owned by Bayer) from state-level lawsuits alleging failure to warn consumers about potential risks, when the EPA hasn’t mandated such a warning.
More than 100,000 plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against Monsanto and Bayer, claiming thay developed cancer after exposure to Roundup. The legal argument centers on whether federal pesticide regulations preempt state law, specifically regarding failure-to-warn claims.
The Durnell Case
The case before the Supreme Court,Monsanto Company v. Durnell, stems from the lawsuit filed by John Durnell, a Missouri man who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of using Roundup. Durnell alleged he used the product without protective gear, believing it was safe. A jury initially rejected his claim that the product was defective but
