SCOTUS Protects Bayer with Legal Immunity from Roundup Cancer Claims; Investors Are Last Line of Defense
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MEDIA CONTACT: Ryon Harms, [email protected], (310) 730-9407
Supreme Court ruling for Bayer in Monsanto v. Durnell limits state-law cancer-warning lawsuits against pesticide manufacturers by holding that federal pesticide-labeling law preempts certain failure-to-warn claims — preventing states from protecting their own citizens
EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA – JUNE 25, 2026 – The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in favor of Bayer in Monsanto v. Durnell, holding that federal pesticide labeling requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), preempts state law failure-to-warn lawsuits about Roundup's glyphosate-related cancer risks. The decision significantly limits the ability of states to protect their citizens and injured consumers to seek relief when manufacturers fail to warn about emerging health risks from federally registered pesticides.
This decision effectively elevates EPA's labeling determinations above state-law protections that have historically served as a complementary safeguard. EPA's registration process was designed to operate as a floor alongside state health protection authority and private litigation, not to displace them. State law claims have long functioned as an important source of information about emerging risks and as an incentive for manufacturers to update disclosures when new evidence becomes available.
This decision wipes out thousands of pending claims, jeopardizes Bayer's proposed $7.25 billion class settlement for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma claims, and establishes that pesticide manufacturers can avoid accountability so long as EPA has approved a label, even where the product contains harmful chemicals and fails to warn users of its effects.
The ruling comes as a growing body of scientific research links glyphosate to cancer and other chronic diseases, and as new evidence shows that cancer rates are rising among young people across the U.S. Corn Belt.
“Today's decision rewards a company that has spent years lobbying to weaken pesticide oversight,” said Danielle Fugere, President and Chief Counsel of As You Sow. “State failure-to-warn claims were one of the last meaningful checks on pesticide safety in this country. Eliminating these warnings prevents states from protecting their own citizens and leaves consumers, farmworkers, and communities with little recourse to protect themselves from health harms associated with these pesticides.”
Fugere added, “Bayer claims that legal costs of glyphosate cases are threatening its ability to sell glyphosate in the U.S., but the legal costs are self-imposed. It has failed to warn. The solution is not to prevent those who have been harmed by glyphosate products from seeking compensation in court, but to provide a warning on its product to help prevent the harm in the first place. This is the crux of the issue. People being harmed must matter; states’ ability to require warnings to protect citizens from harmful products is a critical right, especially where the federal government fails to do so.”
That concern was reflected in the Supreme Court’s unanimous Bates v. Dow Agrosciences decision, in which the Supreme Court held that “FIFRA contemplates that pesticide labels will evolve over time” and that “tort suits can serve as a catalyst in this process.”
Bayer's central legal theory in the case was that it would have been impossible to add a cancer warning to Roundup without EPA approval. However, Congress expressly preserved a role for state-law remedies in the legislation, describing EPA’s registration as only prima facie evidence of compliance rather than conclusive proof that a label adequately warns of all risks.
Today's ruling marks a major shift. By extending federal preemption to bar state-law warning claims, the Court has narrowed the role states may play in addressing deficiencies in pesticide labeling and shifted greater responsibility for consumer protection to federal regulators at a time when federal regulators are dramatically walking back or eliminating health and environmental standards.
As You Sow's 2026 Pesticides in the Pantry scorecard revealed that many food companies are now actively retreating from pesticide disclosure and reduction policies. Companies that previously provided pesticide disclosures and/or actions — including General Mills, ADM, and Conagra — have since dismantled those commitments.
As You Sow, a shareholder representative group, has filed shareholder resolutions related to pesticide risk for over a decade at General Mills, PepsiCo, ADM, Conagra, Campbell's, Post Holdings, B&G Foods, J.M. Smucker, Kraft Heinz, Monsanto, and DuPont, asking companies to measure, disclose, and reduce pesticide risk in their supply chains.
“With the state courts now closed to injured consumers and EPA looking the other way, investors are among the last remaining checks on corporate pesticide accountability,” said Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow.“ The underlying scientific, reputational, and financial risks of glyphosate have not changed, only States’ ability to protect their citizens has.”
# # #
As You Sow is the nation's leading shareholder representative, with a 30+ year track record promoting environmental and social corporate responsibility. As You Sow addresses a range of issues that affect shareholder value including climate change, ocean plastics, toxins in the food system, biodiversity, racial justice, and workplace diversity. See As You Sow's shareholder resolution tracker.