A few weeks ago, National Health Freedom Coalition reported on the then-upcoming US Supreme Court decision in Monsanto Company v. Durnell, wherein Monsanto, now owned by Bayer Corporation, argued that federal law specifically under the Federal Insecticide and Rocenticide Act (FIFRA), did not allow plaintiff John Durnell’s state law claim. John Durnell, a gardener in Missouri, had sued Monsanto saying that the herbicide Roundup which contained glyphosate, caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto should have had a warning on the Roundup label disclosing the risk of cancer to the user. The EPA had evaluated Roundup and decided that glyphosate was not likely to cause cancer and had not required any warning on the label. The jury awarded Durnell $1.25 million in damages on this failure-to-warn claim. The trial court and appellate court sided with Durnell, and Monsanto appealed to the US Supreme Court, which ruled on June 25, 2026, and held that FIFRA expressly barred Durnell’s state-law failure-to-warn claim “because the claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label.”
Did the Supreme Court just side with Monsanto?
Some have framed this case as the US Supreme Court protecting a big corporation over the rights of those injured by this corporation and as a significant blow to the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. Certainly, it is always disappointing to see someone who was legitimately injured by a product and who cannot get just compensation. But what does this Supreme Court decision really mean? Did the US Supreme Court really just side with Monsanto? Monsanto was the winner in this decision in that it will not have to pay this jury verdict, nor will it be liable for the other large jury verdicts and the injuries of plaintiffs in other failure-to-warn Roundup cases, which, at this point, number over 100,000 people, though many have settled their cases. The decision in Monsanto Company v. Durnell, however, was really less about siding with Monsanto and more about the Supreme Court deciding to stay in what it considers its own lane.
FIFRA does expressly bar the labeling claim
For a pesticide (the word “pesticide” as used by FIFRA also includes herbicides) like glyphosate to be sold, EPA must approve the label for the product and once EPA approves the label, the manufacturer is required to use that EPA-approved label or be subject to civil or even criminal penalties. The only way that the label can change is if EPA “approves or requires a label change and amends the pesticides registration.” FIFRA directly states that a “State shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter.” Congress, when it enacted FIFRA, enacted a national uniform labeling law. Durnell’s state claim for failure to warn would require Monsanto to add to the label approved by EPA and therefore to break the law. Congress had already taken away the states’ rights with the language used in FIFRA. The US Supreme Court followed the law as set forth by Congress.
EPA is not current with the science on glyphosate
Since 1991, EPA has deemed glyphosate as not having the potential for carcinogenicity. The EPA has not re-evaluated the risk of glyphosate, which is used on many crops grown in the US, in light of more recent science and developments, even though the most influential paper supporting the safety of glyphosate was retracted in 2025 and found to be fraudulent. Monsanto had provided unpublished studies to the authors, other studies were ignored, Monsanto employees had contributed to the article, which was not mentioned, and the authors had received payments from Monsanto. Other areas around the world have recognized the toxicity of glyphosate, such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which reviewed 1000 studies on glyphosate and classified glyphosate as Group 2A, “probably carcinogenic to humans.” EPA still does nothing to protect the public from glyphosate. EPA should act, but when it does not, what else can be done?
When the EPA does not protect the public
Although some states have their own more stringent pesticide laws, including California’s Proposition 65, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, a more stringent state labeling laws will not change what a manufacturer must put on a label because that is set by EPA and not state law. So what can be done when EPA does not regulate a pesticide adequately? EPA can be challenged through a petition for regulatory action, requesting that EPA suspend or cancel a pesticide registration or asking that the label be amended to contain a cancer warning. If EPA denies the request, it can be reviewed by a judge. The EPA can also be called to task directly by bringing EPA into court for a review of whether, when regulating glyphosate, EPA acted arbitrarily or capriciously, whether it abused its discretion, or whether it acted contrary to law.
Other legal theories or claims may also be available. One might be a consumer protection claim if Monsanto made claims to consumers regarding the safety of Roundup which were found to be fraudulent. This would focus on the actions of Monsanto instead of that of the EPA. Further, Congress can amend FIFRA to allow for private lawsuits under certain circumstances or allow for state labeling requirements that are more stringent than those required by the EPA. Congress could amend FIFRA and add a no-fault compensation program for those injured.
The Monsanto decision and limiting agency power
Agencies like the EPA have tremendous power because employees and heads of the agencies are not elected by the people. When an agency is “captured,” meaning that instead of acting in the public interest, it acts to advance the interests of the very industry it should be regulating, there are times, like in the Monsanto case, that the plaintiff has no remedy and will not be made whole. But this issue falls not on the Supreme Court, but in the lap of Congress which made the law preempting states’ laws. The issue also falls into the lap of EPA which appears to be acting on behalf of the pesticide company instead of regulating it appropriately.
The Supreme Court has come down on the side of limiting agency power in other cases, why not this one? In Monsanto, the Court decided that, since Congress had clearly created a uniform and comprehensive federal regulatory framework, that therefore state law had to yield. In other cases, however, like Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court limited the power of agencies, holding that a court did not have to defer to the agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute just because the agency adopted it, resulting in courts have the final say over interpretation. The Supreme Court appears to be looking at whether Congress has included language in the statute that applies directly, and if Congress has done so, then the Supreme Court will follow the law as set forth by Congress.
Many groups working toward reform
Another way to make changes when EPA will not regulate to protect the public, is to join an organization that is working on stronger pesticide laws, greater manufacturer accountability, and public health protections. Some of these organizations include Californians for Pesticide Reform, Connecticut Pesticide Reform, Minnesota Pesticide Awareness, Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides, and a national organization, Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network. You can contact one of these organizations or look in your state for other organizations that are working to change laws to protect the public when the EPA won’t.
