![]()
The Supreme Court just slammed the door on nearly 70,000 cancer victims.
In a deeply disappointing 7-2 ruling, the justices shielded chemical giant Bayer-Monsanto from state-level product liability lawsuits over its weed killer, Roundup, and its failure to include a warning on the label about the risks of cancer.
How exactly did this case come about?
John Durnell, a St. Louis resident, sued Monsanto in 2019, alleging that decades of using glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in Roundup, caused him to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer.
The jury sided with Durnell in 2023, awarding him $1.25 million in damages. But after an appeals court upheld the verdict, Monsanto petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case in April 2025.
Impacting the recent ruling was Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s majority opinion that: The EPA has “repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer,” and therefore has not required “pesticides like Roundup to include a cancer warning on their labels.” That means that, “as a matter of federal law, Monsanto legally must use a label without a cancer warning unless and until EPA approves or requires a change.”
Not likely to cause cancer?
Are Kavanaugh’s pockets being lined? Has he not bothered to review the evidence?
IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” and this was posted directly on the WHO’s website, where it reads, “data from all of the studies combined show a statistically significant association between non-Hodgkin lymphoma and exposure to glyphosate.”
And if glyphosate were safe, then why have 33 countries banned it?
On top of this, the EPA did indeed label the product possibly carcinogenic after a 1980s study revealed that mice that were given glyphosate developed tumors at statistically significant rates.
However, that was swept under the rug. Monsanto lobbied the EPA for six years to reverse the classification, and the agency changed its finding. Multiple studies came out afterward that presented evidence that the product was safe. But it was found that they were ghostwritten by Monsanto’s own scientists.
Meanwhile, Monsanto continued to take steps to protect its profits, not its customers.
Case in point… In 2025 alone, Bayer spent over $9 million in lobbying efforts, and millions more in previous years. The company sent representatives to Washington, which paid off because the Trump administration now has Monsanto’s back on glyphosate.
How can this be the case when HHS Secretary RFK Jr. said himself that glyphosate causes cancer?
Also in 2025, legislators in 11 states introduced bills to effectively give legal immunity to pesticide makers. Why would multiple states bother to do this? Could it be because Bayer’s fingerprints are all over it?
The Supreme Court ruling in favor of Bayer-Monsanto confirms that if a company or industry has enough lobbyists or the capability to fake science reports, then its profits will be secured at the expense of keeping U.S. citizens safe.
What’s next? Drug manufacturers arguing that FDA approval alone should protect them from lawsuits and product recalls?
Regardless of where you stand on Roundup, or any product for that matter, Americans shouldn’t lose the right to present their case before a jury and let the evidence speak for itself.