A US court ruling will enable Bayer, the manufacturer of the herbicide ‘Roundup’, to avoid a wave of lawsuits

On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favour of Bayer, the manufacturer of the controversial herbicide “Roundup”. It is believed that this ruling will halt thousands of lawsuits alleging that the company failed to warn people that the product could cause cancer.

The case came before the judges following a massive wave of lawsuits, during which judgements worth several billion dollars were handed down against “Bayer” – a German agrochemical manufacturer which acquired “Roundup”’s original manufacturer, “Monsanto”, in 2018.

By a vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court ruled that “Bayer” cannot be held liable in state courts for failing to provide a warning, as federal regulatory authorities have determined that a link to cancer is unlikely and do not require warning labelling. Federal law also prohibits states from imposing additional or different labelling requirements, according to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by her colleague Neil Gorsuch, issued a separate opinion, stating that “Monsanto” could have added a warning without violating federal law.

Although the ruling relates to “Roundup”, it may have implications for similar claims regarding the health effects of other pesticide products.

“This ruling is a victory for US farmers who help feed the world,” said Bill Anderson, CEO of “Bayer”. “It provides the regulatory clarity that innovators like us need to develop agricultural solutions that ensure an affordable food supply.”

Although Bayer stated that this ruling should lead to the dismissal of the claims regarding failure to provide a warning, the company indicated that it plans to proceed with the proposed US$7.25 billion class-action settlement designed to resolve most of the remaining claims.

The ruling has been condemned by environmental organisations and lawyers representing people who believe that “Roundup” has caused them harm.

The case was brought before the Supreme Court by John Durnell, a resident of Missouri. He developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after working for more than 20 years as a “pesticide applicator” in his local community and using “Roundup” in parks in his St Louis neighbourhood.

The jury agreed that the company had failed to warn him of the potential cancer risk and awarded him $1.25 million. However, the man never received the money because the ruling was appealed.

J. Durnell, aged 75, said on Thursday that he is now in remission and that he will be fine even without the money.

“However, there are thousands of cases similar to mine that will now not be heard in court,” he said. “That is my greatest disappointment.”

There is still heated debate over whether the main ingredient in ‘Roundup’ – glyphosate – causes cancer. In 2015, the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified this chemical as “probably carcinogenic”. At the time, the US Environmental Protection Agency concluded that, when used as directed, it is unlikely to cause cancer in humans.

The agency approved a label without a cancer warning, whilst “Bayer” argued that it was obliged to comply with those federal standards. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument and ruled that specific warning requirements cannot be enforced under state laws and court rulings.

“Bayer” disputes the cancer claims, but had previously set aside US$16 billion to settle the cases, and earlier this year offered to pay US$7.25 billion to settle the class action claims. A federal judge recently ruled that the proposed settlement will be heard in a Missouri court, where most of the claims were filed.