A Roundup Supreme Court Victory

A 7-2 majority stops a mass tort attempt to evade federal law on regulating a Monsanto pesticide

WSJ editorial. Excerpts:

"the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (Fifra) . . . establishes a regulatory scheme for the Environmental Protection Agency to review and approve pesticides. It also expressly bars states from imposing requirements “for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required” by the agency."

"“For the more than three decades since, EPA has repeatedly re-evaluated glyphosate and has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer,” Justice Kavanaugh writes. “As a matter of federal law, Monsanto legally must use a label without a cancer warning unless and until EPA approves or requires a change.”"

"Only “if EPA determines that a given warning is necessary for a pesticide’s label and the manufacturer then proceeds to sell the pesticide without that warning, the manufacturer might face liability for misbranding,” Justice Kavanaugh explains." 

 Also see Bayer Wins Supreme Court Challenge Over Roundup Litigation: The 7-2 decision will help the company in its battle to resolve thousands of claims that the popular weedkiller caused cancer by Lydia Wheeler and Patrick Thomas of The WSJ. Excerpts:

"a federal regulator—the Environmental Protection Agency—didn’t require the product to carry a warning label"

"federal law requires it to use the EPA-approved label without a cancer warning, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court. The goal of the federal law—to create a uniform labeling system—“would otherwise be impossible to achieve,” he said."

"The EPA has repeatedly determined that it isn’t likely to be carcinogenic in humans and doesn’t need a label that includes a cancer warning."