The Supreme Court's recent decision in the case of Monsanto v. Durnell has impacted the ongoing litigation against the weedkiller Roundup, which has faced numerous lawsuits claiming it causes cancer.
● The U. S. has a significant problem with excessive litigation, costing over 2% of the GDP. Lawsuit costs are rising faster than inflation.
● The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that claims linking Roundup to cancer could not proceed based on a “failure to warn” theory.
● The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that glyphosate, Roundup's main ingredient, is unlikely to cause cancer, a stance supported by various international organizations.
● Despite scientific evidence, around 200,000 lawsuits have been filed against Roundup, significantly affecting Bayer, which purchased Monsanto in 2018. Bayer has already agreed to pay billions to settle claims.
● The Court's ruling highlighted that, under federal law, specifically the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), states cannot impose additional labeling requirements if the EPA has approved a product's label.
● The dissenting opinion from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that state-law claims could exist alongside federal regulations, but the majority found this interpretation convoluted.
● The ruling is expected to limit some litigation against Roundup but not all, as other claims may still be filed under different legal theories.
The Durnell decision represents a significant moment for scientific regulation and legal consistency regarding product liability. While the ruling will reduce some lawsuits against Roundup, it will not eliminate them entirely. The plaintiffs' bar still has many avenues for litigation despite this setback.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/monsanto-v-durnell-supreme-court-roundup-cancer
No comments:
Post a Comment