High court to examine federal law role in glyphosate warning disputes
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a major legal case involving Roundup herbicide, a decision that could bring long-awaited clarity to pesticide labeling rules in the United States. The case centers on whether federal law prevents states from imposing their own warning requirements on products already approved by federal regulators.
"The Supreme Court decision to take the case is good news for U.S. farmers, who need regulatory clarity," said Bayer CEO Bill Anderson. "It's also an important step in our multi-pronged strategy to significantly contain this litigation. It is time for the U.S. legal system to establish that companies should not be punished under state laws for complying with federal warning label requirements." Every leading regulator worldwide has concluded that glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely.
The dispute comes from a Missouri lawsuit in which a jury ruled that the company failed to warn users about potential cancer risks. While the jury awarded limited damages, it rejected other claims and did not grant punitive damages. The ruling was later upheld by a state appeals court, opening the door for review by the nation’s highest court.
At the heart of the case is a legal question known as federal preemption. This issue asks whether companies that follow federal pesticide labeling rules can still be punished under state laws. Different federal courts have reached conflicting decisions on this question, creating uncertainty for manufacturers and farmers.