Police assess evidence on £40,000 donation to Robert Jenrick’s campaign
Police are reviewing evidence on a £40,000 donation to Robert Jenrick’s campaign amid foreign source allegations.
The Guardian World1 min read
US supreme court to hear case that could weaken consumers’ ability to sue for failure to warn of product risks
TL;DR
The US Supreme Court will hear a case that may limit consumers' ability to sue companies for not warning about product risks, specifically regarding glyphosate, a chemical linked to cancer. Monsanto argues it shouldn't be held liable if the EPA hasn't mandated a warning about cancer risks.
Key points
- US Supreme Court to hear glyphosate regulation case
- Case could weaken consumer lawsuits over product risks
- Glyphosate linked to cancer, classified as probable carcinogen
- Monsanto argues it can't be held liable without EPA warning
- Bayer seeks to end litigation with favorable ruling
Mentioned in this story
US Supreme CourtMonsantoBayerWorld Health Organization
glyphosate
The US supreme court will hear arguments in a key pesticide regulation case on Monday, setting the stage for a ruling that could weaken the ability of consumers to sue companies for failing to warn of product risks.
The case centers on glyphosate – a weed-killing chemical used in the popular Roundup brand and numerous other herbicide products. The chemical has been scientifically linked to cancer in multiple studies, and was classified a probable human carcinogen by an arm of the World Health Organization in 2015.
Monsanto, the company that introduced glyphosate to the world in the 1970s and is now a part of the German conglomerate Bayer, has spent the last decade fighting more than 100,000 lawsuits claiming it failed to warn customers of cancer risks.
While maintaining that its products don’t cause cancer, Monsanto is asking the supreme court to rule that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (Fifra), it cannot be held liable for failing to warn of a cancer risk if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not found such a risk exists and not required such a warning. The EPA’s position is that glyphosate is “unlikely” to be carcinogenic.
Bayer has said a favorable supreme court ruling will help it put an end to the litigation. Backing Monsanto’s case is Syngenta, a Chinese-owned company that is similarly being sued by thousands of people around the US who allege the company failed to warn them of research linking Syngenta’s paraquat herbicide products to Parkinson’s disease.
In addition to Monsanto and Syngenta, future cases against other pesticide makers could similarly be limited, according to legal experts.
Lawrence Ebner, general counsel for the Atlantic Legal Foundation, which is backing Monsanto, said in a briefing ahead of the court hearing that consumers could be misled by unneeded warnings. “If you have a pesticide label with a zillion different warnings, how is the user supposed to know the ones that really matter, the ones that EPA really has … determined are necessary?” he said
Q&A
What is the glyphosate case before the US Supreme Court about?
The case involves whether Monsanto can be held liable for not warning consumers about cancer risks associated with glyphosate if the EPA has not identified such risks.
How could the Supreme Court ruling affect consumer lawsuits?
A ruling in favor of Monsanto could weaken consumers' ability to sue companies for failing to provide warnings about product risks, potentially impacting numerous ongoing lawsuits.
What has the World Health Organization said about glyphosate?
The World Health Organization classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015, linking it to cancer in multiple studies.
What is Bayer's position in the glyphosate litigation?
Bayer, which owns Monsanto, claims that a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court would help end the ongoing litigation related to glyphosate and its alleged cancer risks.
