The U.S. Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Bayer-Owned Monsanto in Roundup Cancer Case

Key Takeaways

• A U.S. appeals court ruled in favor of Bayer-owned Monsanto in a lawsuit alleging the company failed to warn customers about the cancer risk of its Roundup weed killer.
• The court said state labeling requirements cannot usurp federal ones, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not require a cancer warning on Roundup.
• The decision conflicts with those from other courts, and the company argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should settle the issue.

In a significant victory for Bayer-owned Monsanto, a federal court has overturned a verdict finding the company responsible for claims that its Roundup weed killer causes cancer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia ruled against David Schaffner, Jr. and Theresa Sue Schaffner of Pennsylvania, who charged that Monsanto violated the state’s law by failing to include a cancer warning on the label of the weed killer. The lawsuit claimed that this omission led David Schaffner to develop non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma through exposure to Roundup.

However, the court pointed to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which prevents states from imposing labeling requirements that differ from U.S. law. It stated that since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Roundup’s labeling without the cancer warning, there was no violation of the law. This decision conflicts with those of appeals courts in Atlanta and San Francisco in similar Roundup cases.

Bayer Calls for Supreme Court Intervention

In a statement to Investopedia, Bayer expressed satisfaction with the ruling and argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should “settle this important issue of law.” Bayer has consistently maintained that Roundup does not cause cancer. The news of the court ruling sent shares of Bayer soaring more than 11% in German trading on Friday.

This ruling has significant implications for the ongoing legal battles surrounding Roundup. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit sets a precedent that federal law supersedes state law when it comes to labeling requirements for pesticides. It also highlights the conflicting opinions among different courts regarding the cancer risk associated with Roundup.

Roundup has faced numerous lawsuits in recent years, with plaintiffs claiming that exposure to the weed killer caused them to develop cancer. While some juries have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, this latest ruling in favor of Monsanto demonstrates the complexity of the legal landscape surrounding Roundup and the need for a definitive resolution.

Environmental and health organizations have long raised concerns about the potential health risks of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015. However, the EPA and other regulatory agencies around the world have maintained that glyphosate is safe when used according to the approved instructions.

The conflicting opinions among courts and regulatory agencies highlight the need for further research and clarity regarding the potential health risks associated with Roundup. As the legal battles continue, it is crucial to consider the scientific evidence and expert opinions to make informed decisions about the safety of this widely used herbicide.

In conclusion, the U.S. appeals court ruling in favor of Bayer-owned Monsanto in the Roundup cancer case is a significant development in the ongoing legal battles surrounding the weed killer. The court’s decision highlights the conflict between state and federal labeling requirements and the need for a definitive resolution from the U.S. Supreme Court. As the controversy surrounding Roundup continues, it is essential to prioritize scientific research and expert opinions to ensure the safety of consumers and the environment.

Read the original article on Investopedia.