The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in a case involving the weed killer Roundup. The dispute in Monsanto Company v. Durnell arises from a 2019 lawsuit brought by John Durnell, who claims he developed cancer after years of using Roundup. However, the weight of scientific evidence indicates that Roundup does not cause cancer. In this case, the court has an opportunity to reaffirm the rule of law and reinforce a fundamental principle of the U.S. government system: federal law is supreme when it conflicts with state law.
The case centers on whether a claim involving a state law’s failure to warn can override the regulatory determinations of the Environmental Protection Agency, which has repeatedly concluded, based on the best available science, that Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, is not carcinogenic.
The plaintiff, Durnell, argues that additional warning labels were required under state law despite the EPA’s findings. On its face, this claim is specious. Under
Continue reading
Join the conversation!
Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!