Tag Archive for: Glyphosate

Idaho Judge Reads Supreme Court’s Roundup Ruling Narrowly

/in ,

A federal judge in Idaho has allowed a lawsuit alleging that Roundup causes cancer to go to trial, holding that the Supreme Court’s June 2026 ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell only precludes label-based theories against the weedkiller’s manufacturer. The case is an early indication that state-law tort claims may remain viable after Durnell if they do not depend on Roundup’s label.

Issued October 1, 2026, the order denies Monsanto’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s negligence and design defect claims. Although the court granted summary judgment on the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claim, the court stressed that such a claim could succeed on different facts.

The case is one of thousands alleging that glyphosate, the active ingredient in past formulations of Roundup, causes cancer. Initially transferred to a multi-district litigation panel, the case was remanded to the District of Idaho for trial.

Meanwhile, the first state-court Roundup trial since Durnell is currently underway in St. Louis County, Missouri, which includes negligence and design-defect claims. That court found failure-to-warn allegations preempted, however.

EPA is also in the midst of reevaluating glyphosate’s human health risks, and recently requested scientific input on its review.

Legal Background

Many of the lawsuits against Monsanto have included claims that the manufacturer did not provide adequate warnings about Roundup’s alleged carcinogenicity. These “failure-to-warn” claims often focused on the absence of warning language on Roundup’s label.

On June 25, 2026, in Durnell, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts such claims. As discussed in a previous post, the court found that FIFRA and its implementing regulations require manufacturers to use EPA’s approved pesticide label. EPA has not determined that glyphosate causes cancer, and its approved Roundup label carries no cancer warning.

Because the state tort claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning, the Court reasoned that the claim would impose a labeling requirement “in addition to or different from” EPA’s approved label. FIFRA expressly prohibits such state-law requirements, so the Court found the claim expressly preempted.

Impossibility Preemption Inapplicable

Before the District of Idaho, Monsanto argued that all of the plaintiff’s claims should be barred by impossibility preemption. The court was unpersuaded, finding the doctrine inapplicable.

Impossibility preemption occurs when it is impossible to comply with state and federal requirements simultaneously. In Durnell, the Supreme Court did not reach impossibility preemption, finding express preemption sufficient to decide the case. But Monsanto pointed to a Durnell footnote observing that FIFRA bars selling a pesticide whose composition differs from the one described at registration. That made it impossible for Monsanto to change its formula, the company argued.

The court disagreed. “Monsanto cannot hide behind impossibility preemption when there is no evidence indicating it could not have pursued changing Roundup’s formula with the EPA had it wanted to,” the decision states. Monsanto knew of alternatives and ultimately changed the formula, the court noted, adding that “it was not impossible to ask EPA to change the formula.”

Non-Label Claims Survive Durnell

The plaintiff brings three claims: negligence, failure-to-warn, and design defect. Because of Durnell, the court held that the plaintiff cannot put on evidence about Roundup’s labeling. However, to the extent that they do not rest on the label, the court determined that none of the three claims are precluded by Durnell.

Addressing negligence, the court held that “nothing in Durnell” suggests “its holding should be read so broadly as to encompass negligence claims that are not based on labeling.” The court rejected Monsanto’s arguments that it was “prohibited” from making any claims differing from those approved by EPA. The plaintiff “is not necessarily saying Monsanto should have warned him that Roundup caused cancer; just that [Roundup] was potentially dangerous for his health,” the decision states.

However, the court noted that the distinction between negligence and failure-to-warn claims would be “a tough line for both parties to tow,” emphasizing that the parties should “hew closely to the negligence framework.”

The court likewise recognized that a failure-to-warn claim could theoretically survive on materials other than the product label, stating that such a claim “can still be pleaded in this type of case if facts exist to support it.”

Finally, the court determined that the plaintiff’s design defect claim was not a disguised failure-to-warn claim and could proceed. The “allegation is that Roundup’s chemical formulation is unsafe. Full stop,” the decision states. The court noted that causation, hotly disputed on competing expert evidence, is for the jury.

The court also cited the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, which notes that common-law rules requiring manufacturers to design reasonably safe products free of defects do not require manufacturers to label or package products in a particular way.

Facts Preclude Failure-to-Warn Claim

Although the court determined that a failure-to-warn claim could theoretically survive Durnell, the court found evidentiary deficiencies in this case that were fatal to the claim here.

Besides product labeling, the only failure-to-warn theory that was not “severely under-developed” was based on advertising, the court held. But according to the court, the plaintiff admitted that he could not recall seeing Roundup advertisements during deposition. While the plaintiff later tried to recharacterize those statements, the court doubted that it cured the problem.

“Simply put, the Court is concerned that, were it to allow this claim to proceed to trial, Hoge would essentially be arguing a failure to warn labeling claim just without the word ‘label,’” the decision states. “This cuts against the Durnell decision.”

The case is Hoge v. Monsanto Co., No. 4:25-cv-277 (D. Idaho). Trial is set for February 2027.

EPA Seeks Scientific Input as Glyphosate Review Moves Forward

/in , , ,

EPA’s long-running review of glyphosate is entering a new phase, with the Agency soliciting scientific input and working with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reassess the pesticide’s potential effects on human health.

Last month, EPA requested comment on a list of studies that will inform its ongoing registration review of the pesticidal substance under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This month, the Agency also announced a partnership with HHS to improve scientific coordination in the review.

Although FIFRA requires EPA to review pesticide registrations at least every 15 years, the Agency has not yet completed the registration review that began in 2009. The review has been prolonged, in part, by the Ninth Circuit’s 2022 vacatur of the human-health portion of EPA’s interim decision.

Glyphosate is best known as the active ingredient in the weed-killer Roundup. EPA has long taken the position that glyphosate is not a human carcinogen, a position shared by a number of other international regulatory authorities. However, in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

IARC’s determination was a major catalyst for litigation over Roundup’s alleged carcinogenicity. Nearly 4,000 actions are currently pending in a federal multidistrict litigation concerning Roundup product liability claims, with numerous state suits also pending.

Those plaintiffs were dealt a significant blow earlier this year by the Supreme Court. In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the Court held that FIFRA preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims based on the absence of a cancer warning from EPA-approved Roundup labels.

EPA’s registration review could have significant implications for this ongoing litigation. And because glyphosate is one of the most widely used pesticides in the United States, the review may also have significant agricultural implications.

Background on EPA’s Glyphosate Review

In 2020, EPA issued an interim registration review decision concluding that glyphosate posed no human-health risks of concern when used according to its label and was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Environmental and farmworker organizations challenged that decision in the Ninth Circuit. In Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the court vacated the human-health portion of EPA’s interim decision and remanded it to the Agency for further analysis and explanation.

The court held that EPA’s selection of the “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” hazard descriptor was not supported by substantial evidence because its reasoning was internally inconsistent and did not adequately follow the Agency’s Cancer Guidelines. Among other concerns, EPA acknowledged that the available evidence did not permit a conclusion regarding the association between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but nevertheless classified glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” The court also identified problems with EPA’s evaluation of animal-tumor studies. The court did not determine that glyphosate causes cancer; rather, it concluded that EPA had not adequately supported its classification.

The Ninth Circuit also held that EPA’s registration review decision constituted agency action triggering the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It remanded the ecological portion of the decision without vacatur and directed EPA to complete additional review.

In September 2022, EPA withdrew the remaining portions of the interim decision, explaining that it needed additional time to address the ecological issues and satisfy its ESA obligations. EPA stated that its underlying scientific findings had not changed but that it would revisit and better explain its evaluation of glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential.

Open-Literature Search

On August 25, 2026, EPA released a list of studies screened by the Agency to inform its human health risk assessment for glyphosate. The list includes over 5,300 studies, including over one thousand studies classified as “potentially relevant.” In a separate document, EPA explained the methodology underlying the search.

The same day, EPA requested public input on the completeness of the search and asked commenters to identify additional peer-reviewed studies that may warrant consideration. The Agency initially established a September 24, 2026, deadline for comments.

On September 28, EPA extended the comment period on its search by 60 days, moving the deadline from September 24 to November 23, 2026. According to EPA, the extension is intended to provide additional time for meaningful stakeholder input.

EPA-HHS Memorandum of Understanding

On September 22, 2026, EPA and HHS announced a new interagency memorandum of understanding (MOU) intended to expand scientific coordination in EPA’s glyphosate registration review. Under the agreement, the agencies will exchange scientific information, identify research gaps, and coordinate additional research concerning potential human health effects of glyphosate.

EPA and HHS will establish a joint technical working group composed of experts from EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs and several HHS components, including the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Toxicology Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Environmental Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.

The agencies identified several areas for additional research and coordination, including the toxicology of glyphosate formulations and surfactants, occupational epidemiology, human exposure and biomonitoring, and dietary exposure. EPA stated that its updated human health assessment will evaluate evidence concerning cancer, genotoxicity, reproductive and developmental effects, as well as exposure from glyphosate-based formulations, occupational uses, and dietary sources, including preharvest applications.

The MOU creates no new authority for either agency and does not dictate the outcome of the registration review. EPA retains sole responsibility for registration decisions under FIFRA.

What to Watch

EPA currently anticipates completing the updated human health risk assessment in early 2027. That assessment will provide another opportunity for public comment and could inform subsequent regulatory decisions concerning glyphosate. In the meantime, under the MOU, EPA and HHS intend to make appropriate materials produced by the working group available in the glyphosate registration-review docket as they are finalized.

In addition, the first Roundup trial following Durnell is currently underway. While state-law failure-to-warn claims are no longer viable, the trial may be an early indicator of whether design defect or other torts can succeed. That case is Aretino v. Monsanto Co., No. 20SL-CC03676 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis County), filed July 10, 2020.

FIFRA Preempts Label-Based Failure-to-Warn Claims, Supreme Court Rules

/in , , ,

On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court held, 7-2, that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim alleging that Monsanto failed to warn users that the weedkiller Roundup causes cancer.  The decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell concludes that EPA’s approval of a pesticide label without a cancer warning constitutes a federal labeling “requirement” that state tort law cannot override.

The ruling resolves a circuit split. The Third Circuit previously found preemption on these facts, while the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits and several state appellate courts had not.

What the Court Decided

Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh identified two interlocking features of FIFRA’s registration regime that together produce the preemptive effect.  First, before registering any pesticide, EPA must determine that the proposed label contains all warnings “necessary and . . . adequate to protect health and the environment” and is not false or misleading.  That determination reflects the agency’s considered judgment about what a label must—and need not—say.  Second, EPA’s implementing regulations require manufacturers to use the EPA-approved label, subject to narrow exceptions not at issue in this case.  Changing the label without EPA approval, including by unilaterally adding a cancer warning, may expose the manufacturer to civil and criminal penalties under federal law.  Together, the majority reasoned, those features constitute a federal labeling “requirement” under FIFRA’s preemption clause that preempts state tort law claims imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” those required under FIFRA.

The majority found support for that reasoning in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., which held that FDA premarket approval of medical devices preempts conflicting state-law device claims, emphasizing the similarities between that preemption clause and FIFRA’s.  It also distinguished Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, which allowed state failure-to-warn claims equivalent to FIFRA’s misbranding standard, on the ground that Bates involved efficacy claims—statements EPA does not review at registration.  Safety determinations, which EPA does review, carry preemptive force that efficacy claims do not, the majority ruled.

Writing for the dissent, Justice Jackson argued FIFRA’s own misbranding prohibition is the relevant federal requirement, and a state claim that simply parallels that prohibition should not be preempted under Bates.  The majority and dissent also disagree over whether EPA’s precautionary-statement regulations reach chronic risks like cancer, as opposed to only acute hazards.  The majority concludes they do, while the dissent maintains the regulatory text addresses acute hazards only.  Because cancer is a chronic condition, the dissent argues pesticide manufacturers can add a cancer warning without EPA approval.

Justice Thomas joined the majority in full but wrote separately to question whether FIFRA’s registration scheme exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause authority, whether FIFRA unlawfully delegates legislative power to EPA, and whether agency action can carry preemptive force under the Supremacy Clause at all.  No other Justice joined that view.

Who’s Affected

The decision most directly benefits pesticide and agrochemical manufacturers defending failure-to-warn claims premised on an EPA-approved label.  The Court’s reasoning, however, leans on a comparison to other federal statutes with similarly worded preemption clauses, which suggests the analysis may be cited in disputes involving other federally regulated, labeled products.  The opinion does not address other theories—such as design defect, manufacturing defect, or advertising-based claims—that were not before the Court in this case.

What to Watch

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s pending-dockets report lists roughly 3,900 active cases in the Roundup MDL as of July 1, 2026, a population of claims against which Durnell‘s reasoning will likely be tested in dismissal motions.  EPA’s glyphosate registration posture also remains unsettled in part, since the Ninth Circuit vacated the agency’s most recent 2020 interim registration review decision in 2022.

In addition, federal lawmakers have introduced legislation to override the Court’s interpretation.  The People Over Poison Act, H.R.9528, would add language to FIFRA clarifying that the law’s preemption clause “shall not be construed to prohibit or otherwise limit a claim related to the labeling or packaging of pesticides or devices under the tort law of any State.”  The bill was introduced on June 29, 2026, by Reps. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) and has been referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.

The case is Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 (U.S.), petition for writ of certiorari granted January 16, 2026.  A previous post on the case, written after the Court granted certiorari, can be found here.

Texas AG Launches Glyphosate Investigation into Major Food Companies

/in ,

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has initiated an investigation into glyphosate residue in foods, especially foods containing oats, his office announced June 2, 2026.

The investigation will examine whether major food companies are complying with Texas law and whether consumers have been misled by health claims on common food products.  The office has already issued civil investigative demands to pesticide and food manufacturers including Bayer and PepsiCo, the press release states.

According to the release, the percentage of Americans with detectable levels of the herbicide in their bodies has risen sharply in recent decades—from 12% in 1993 to over 70% today.  The office attributes this largely to the widespread use of glyphosate as a desiccant, or drying agent, applied to crops shortly before harvest, which it claims accounts for over 90% of glyphosate found in food.

Oats are a particular focus.  While the EPA prohibits using glyphosate as a desiccant on oats grown domestically, the office alleges that “major food companies source their oats from foreign countries where the practice is allowed,” leading to elevated exposures in children through foods such as cereals, breakfast bars, and cookies.

“In fact, studies show that certain food products marketed to children are some of the most glyphosate-contaminated food products in the United States,” the release states.  “Other products are marketed as ‘healthy’ when manufacturers know their products are contaminated with dangerously high levels of glyphosate.”

The glyphosate probe comes less than two months after Paxton’s office announced a similar investigation into activewear company Lululemon over alleged consumer deception related to PFAS in its products.

Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides worldwide and the active ingredient in Roundup.  In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, a designation that EPA has not adopted.  Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), EPA sets pesticide food tolerances at levels at least 100 times below the dose that produced no adverse effects during animal testing.

Supreme Court to Weigh FIFRA Preemption in Roundup Cancer Warning Case

/in , ,

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Monsanto’s appeal of a $1.2 million jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff who claimed Roundup weedkiller caused his cancer, focusing on whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state failure-to-warn claims when EPA has not required the warning.

At the core of the dispute is FIFRA section 24(b), 7 U.S.C. 136v(b), which forbids states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from those required under” FIFRA.  Citing the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrisciences LLC, the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have held that this language does not preempt state-law claims if the elements of the claim “parallel” FIFRA’s prohibition on misbranding.

However, more recently, in 2024, the Third Circuit created what many view as a circuit split, ruling that those courts erred by applying the “parallel requirements” test from Bates too generally.  According to the Third Circuit, EPA regulations implementing FIFRA prohibit manufacturers from adding precautionary statements to product labels without EPA approval, making such labels preempted.

Monsanto’s petition for certiorari, filed April 4, 2025, asks the Court to adopt the Third Circuit’s analysis.  “Because the jury verdict in this case requires Monsanto to include a cancer warning that EPA’s regulations did not require—and in fact affirmatively forbade it from adding—FIFRA preempts Respondent’s claim,” the petition argues.

Respondent John Durnell argues that the circuit split is both “irrelevant” and “illusory.”  In his June 9, 2025, brief, he argues that the jury verdict did not hinge on the labeling claims because Monsanto also advertised Roundup as safe in television advertisements.  He further maintains that there is no actual circuit split.

According to Durnell, there are two ways to update pesticide product labeling: by notification to EPA or by applying for amended registration.  Due to a “unique quirk” in the Third Circuit case, the court explicitly limited its analysis to the first option and “express[ed] no opinion” on whether Monsanto was required to pursue the latter, the brief states.

The Supreme Court’s decision is likely to have massive implications for numerous suits alleging that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is carcinogenic.  EPA has repeatedly determined that glyphosate does not cause cancer, but the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

The case is Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 (U.S.), petition for writ of certiorari granted January 16, 2026.

Court Reinstates Suit Alleging Roundup “Expiration” Due to Impurity

/in ,

Allegations that Monsanto’s popular Roundup-brand weedkillers degrade into a carcinogenic impurity will proceed, after the Ninth Circuit reinstated a proposed class action a district court had dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Unlike the many personal injury suits over Roundup, the plaintiffs in this case assert purely economic harms.  They allege that consumers would have paid less for concentrated Roundup products had they known that glyphosate—the active ingredient—gradually degrades into harmful levels of N-Nitrosoglyphosate (NNG) over time from exposure to nitrites in “everyday air and water,” effectively causing the products to “expire.”

The District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case in December 2023, finding two key allegations implausible: that NNG is substantially certain to form at levels of 1 part per million (ppm), and that 1 ppm NNG is unsafe.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed, emphasizing that plausibility does not require probability.  While no regulation sets a specific 1 ppm limit for NNG, the panel found that an expert opinion combined with EPA statements sufficed to support a plausible claim regarding NNG’s hazard.

Similarly, although the complaint failed to allege that any products purchased by the plaintiffs or other consumers contained 1 ppm NNG, the court held that a variety of factual allegations—including that “Monsanto had discovered NNG at levels above 1 ppm in relevant products in its own possession”—were enough to make the plaintiffs’ claim about the occurrence of 1 ppm NNG plausible.

However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims against Roundup distributor The Scotts Co., finding that plaintiffs failed to allege that Scotts had “unbridled control” over the challenged conduct or knowledge of the alleged expiration.

The Ninth Circuit also criticized the lower court’s reliance on an incomplete version of a key study submitted by Monsanto, which likely presented findings in a more favorable light.  “The parties and the court should be concerned about submission of and reliance upon an incomplete document,” the opinion states.

The case is Koller v. Monsanto Co., No. 24-43, opinion filed March 27, 2025.

California Glyphosate Warning Requirement Ruled Unconstitutional Compelled Speech

/in ,

California’s requirement that glyphosate-containing products display a carcinogen warning violates the First Amendment, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled in a 2-1 decision on November 7, 2023. The decision in the case Nat’l Assoc. of Wheat Growers v. Bonta affirmed a district court’s summary judgment and injunction against the requirement.

Proposition 65 (known as “Prop 65”) requires that any product intentionally containing a chemical on California’s list of known carcinogens warn customers of the product’s carcinogenicity. Glyphosate, one of the most widely used herbicides and the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup, was automatically added to the list of Prop 65 carcinogens following a 2015 determination by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Other organizations, such as EPA, have not found that glyphosate poses a risk to humans, however.

According to the court, compelled commercial speech must pass intermediate scrutiny unless it is “purely factual and uncontroversial information,” in which case a lesser level of scrutiny applies. The panel found that this exemption was not applicable because whether glyphosate is carcinogenic is subject to scientific debate. The panel then determined that the labeling requirement did not survive intermediate scrutiny because “warn[ing] consumers of a potential ‘risk’ never confirmed by any regulatory body” does not directly advance California’s interest in preserving public health.

The warning was previously struck down by a California district court on the grounds that its phrasing would be misleading to customers, it was not purely factual and uncontroversial, and a more equivocal warning would likely not comply with Prop 65. In this case, the panel analyzed three new proposed warning messages from California’s Attorney General and another from California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) but concluded that these warnings were also not purely factual and uncontroversial.

Judge Consuelo M. Callahan wrote for the panel and was joined by Judge Patrick J. Bumatay. Writing in the dissent, Judge Mary M. Schroeder argued that, at minimum, the new OEHHA warning should be remanded to the district court. Schroeder argued that the majority applied inappropriate precedent in determining what makes a statement uncontroversial, failed to examine the actual content of the warning, and ignored the fact that EPA’s most recent determination that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer was vacated by the Ninth Circuit in Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency (2022) because it was not supported by substantial evidence.

EPA Sued Over Herbicide Registration Renewal

/in , ,

On June 6, 2023, the Center for Food Safety and two other environmental groups sued EPA over the Agency’s decision to renew registrations for Enlist One and Enlist Duo, two herbicides manufactured by Corteva Agrisciences, LLC.  The case is currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia as Center for Food Safety v. EPA.

The lawsuit alleges that EPA failed to properly evaluate the Enlist products’ risks as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) and the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) when the Agency renewed the herbicides’ registrations until 2027.  According to the plaintiffs, the herbicides cause numerous adverse environmental effects, including harm to crops growing on neighboring properties and drinking water contamination.  The plaintiffs allege that EPA understated these risks in making its decision, while overstating the herbicides’ effectiveness.  In addition, the plaintiffs argue that EPA’s decision harms the survival, growth, and reproduction of exposed plants and animals, including endangered and threatened species.  The plaintiffs ask the court to vacate EPA’s decision and to stop the sale and use of the Enlist products.

In an EPA memorandum supporting the Agency’s decision, EPA stated that it had “evaluated the benefits and risks to human health and the environment from these products’ uses, including potential risk to non-target organisms, and conducted effects determinations for federally listed endangered and threatened species.”  According to EPA, the results of its evaluations and assessments were sufficient for the Agency to conclude that granting the registration renewal met the requirements of FIFRA and ESA.  These requirements include FIFRA section 3(c)(5), which directs EPA to register a pesticide when the Agency finds that the pesticide will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment, among other criteria; ESA section 7(a)(2), which requires EPA to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that actions taken by EPA do not jeopardize endangered and threatened species; and ESA section 7(d), which prevents EPA from taking irreversible action during 7(a)(2) consultation that eliminates the implementation of reasonable alternatives.

Enlist Duo has previously been the subject of litigation.  In National Family Farm Coalition, et al., v. U.S. EPA, et al., 966 F.3d 893 (9th Cir., 2020), petitioners challenged EPA’s decisions to register the herbicide in 2014, 2015, and 2017 on FIFRA and ESA grounds.  The panel rejected the petitioners’ ESA claims and the majority of the petitioners’ FIFRA claims, allowing Enlist Duo registration, but agreed with the petitioners that EPA did not properly assess harm to monarch butterflies due to the herbicide’s effects on milkweed.  The panel remanded the registration decision to EPA so the Agency could assess this concern and determine whether it presented an unreasonable adverse effect under FIFRA.

According to EPA, Enlist One and Enlist Duo are registered for use in 34 states for a variety of uses on corn, cotton, and soybeans.  Both herbicides contain the active ingredient 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid choline salt.  Enlist Duo also contains the active ingredient glyphosate.

Oral Arguments in Monsanto “Roundup” Case

/in ,

On June 13, 2023, the full Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments in the case Carson v. Monsanto Co.  The case hinges on whether a Georgia law that requires Monsanto to warn consumers about risks the company knows about or has reason to know about is preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The appellant, John D. Carson Sr., alleges that he developed cancer due to regular use of Roundup, a glyphosate-based pesticide manufactured by Monsanto. Carson claims that Monsanto “has known for decades” that Roundup use can cause cancer and failed to label their products in a way that notified consumers of this risk as required by Georgia law.

FIFRA requires pesticide manufacturers to include warning labels on products that adequately protect consumer health, but EPA has concluded that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic” to humans.  FIFRA prohibits state labelling laws that are “in addition to or different from” FIFRA requirements (7 U.S.C. § 136v(b)). Monsanto argues that this language expressly preempts the Georgia law, while Carson contends that the Georgia law merely “parallels” FIFRA’s provisions. Carson cites Bates v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, interpreting the ruling to mean that claims “equivalent to” or narrower than FIFRA provisions are not preempted (544 U.S. 431, 447 (2005)).

Also at issue in the case is the question of whether EPA’s actions with regard to Roundup constitute “force of law.” Carson asserts that EPA’s registration of Roundup does not have the force of law necessary to preempt Georgia law.  Monsanto argues that no force-of-law analysis is required because “EPA determinations define the scope of preemption as a matter of statutory construction,” but also argues that EPA’s actions constitute force of law even if such an analysis is undertaken.

During oral arguments the court posed questions to Carson’s attorney regarding whether a force-of-law analysis is necessary and questioned the attorney representing Monsanto on whether the grounds for an impossibility preemption were met. In addition, both attorneys were asked whether the appeal was “collusive” due to the type of settlement the parties reached in the case.

Carson’s suit was initially dismissed by a Georgia court, which held that FIFRA expressly preempted the Georgia law. In July 2022, it was reinstated by a three-judge Eleventh Circuit panel which ruled in favor of Carson. The panel reached the same result in a new opinion in October 2022. Last December, the full Eleventh Circuit vacated the opinion, ordering that the case be heard en banc.

Study Finds Roundup Cancer Risk Isn’t from Active Ingredient Glyphosate

/in

A newly released study has found that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, may not be directly responsible for the increased risk of cancer that has been associated with the weedkiller. The study was conducted by a team of federal and private sector researchers who tested glyphosate and herbicide mixtures using glyphosate on human B-lymphoblastoid TK6 cells. The researchers concluded that neither glyphosate nor its metabolite forms damaged DNA, causing cancer. Instead, they found that some other ingredient in weedkillers containing glyphosate may be responsible for the DNA damage attributed to glyphosate. This finding contradicts the 2015 World Health Organization (“WHO”) conclusion that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans” and genotoxic (meaning it damages DNA). WHO’s conclusion has led to numerous lawsuits against Bayer AG and Monsanto Co., as well as lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency for concluding that the herbicide would not cause cancer.

Although the study indicates that DNA damage was caused by other components of the formulations, not glyphosate, it did not rule out the possibility that exposure to glyphosate might cause cancer through other mechanisms, according to the National Toxicology Program. Bayer AG has long maintained that glyphosate does not cause cancer and is not genotoxic, and the company released a statement in response to the study, stating that “the extensive body of research on glyphosate-based herbicides and findings of leading health regulators worldwide support the conclusion that glyphosate does not cause cancer and is not genotoxic.”