A key trait of fascism is the collusion of the state and the private sector. Of course a fascist SCOTUS is going to favor corporations: that’s what fascists do.
Expect Harlan Crow to buy Clarence Thomas new tires for his Winnebago very soon.
Hot take: I dislike Monsanto with a passion and think their soaking the modern agricultural world in roundup, along with their crooked schemes targeting farmers and their ‘roundup ready’ GMO crops deserve harsh criminal penalties.
However this was the right legal ruling. The crux of the issue is that Federal law, FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) involves requiring specific labels for such chemicals. For Monsanto to sell Roundup they are required to use the EPA approved label without any changes, and the act also preempts States from requiring different labels.
At issue here is that the individual, Durnell, sued at the state level to require Monsanto to publish a cancer warning label on Roundup.
Were they to do so they would federally no longer be able to sell Roundup because their label now diverged from the EPA approved label. The EPA’s continued position (which the EPA has reexamined over the years) is that Roundup does not cause cancer, so the EPA has not required a label changed.
Ultimately current federal law preempts a state from enforcing different label requirements, and the EPA’s current guidance is not in agreement with the plaintiff’s.
I think the preemption is actually a good thing overall, otherwise every chemical would be labeled with “This product in the State of California is known to cause cancer. In the State of Texas this product is known to cause Minty Fresh Breath and we recommend a minimum of two applications to skin, eyes, and other mucous membranes a day as part of a balanced diet.”
I think the EPA is absolutely the weak link here, and they have been gutted and are a withered husk of their former science and evidence-forward selves. But that was not the question posed to the court, which was “Can an individual compel a chemical company at the state level to change their federally standardized and required product labelling?”
The actual ruling is very enlightening. Jackson and Gorsuch were the two dissenters in the 7-2 vote, and their dissent is worth a read as well.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1068_n7ip.pdf*
I would in general agree with what youve presented here but then how does that translate into immunity from future cancer lawsuits?
Your talking about labelling requirements and the headline is implying if I get cancer from getting soaked with roundup I cant sue despite the lack of warning on the label?
Yeah, the headline is a little misleading/sensationalist, but also a little true. What it essentially means is that a person cannot sue a chemical manufacturer in a state court over negligent labeling (in this case the plaintiff alleged that Monsanto should have provided a warning on label about cancer risks) as long as their label adheres to what the Federal EPA has stipulated.
There is a type of product liability lawsuit called “failure to warn”, where a person can claim that a product was missing critical safety information regarding the use of the product. In this case, Durnell’s lawsuit was a failure to warn lawsuit, alleging that glyphosate gave him cancer and that Monsanto was liable due to not providing a cancer warning on the label, since having one would have directly influence his use of the product.
And he won in Missouri State Court with a jury trial. And Monsanto appealed it to the Missouri Court of Appeals the verdict was again upheld.
Ultimately it got appealed to the Supreme Court, with the argument that FIFRA preempts state law, in that it says that a state cannot require any packaging or labeling requirements in addition to or different from federal requirements. FIFRA also requires that all products carry the EPA approved labeling with no modifications.
And the Supreme Court agreed, ultimately ruling that Monsanto is bound by the regulatory directives of the EPA, and the EPA has not found that such a label is warranted. Monsanto is required by federal regulation to have the approved EPA label (they could not legally change it even if they wanted to, without going through whatever EPA processes are in place), and as such someone cannot sue at the state level under state laws arguing that something should be added to the label.
So it isn’t really some form of blanket immunity, but it does mean that a company that has undergone the EPA regulatory process for their pesticide cannot be sued in a state specifically for leaving something off the EPA-required label that caused injury.
There are potentially other claims one could make, like negligent testing, design defect, misrepresentation, etc., but one can’t sue over the label at the State level.
Ultimately the solution is regulatory and executive. Congress needs to better define liability (such as Rep Massie’s No Immunity for Glyphosate bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7601) and the EPA needs to do its due diligence with regards to product safety, since they are ultimately the gatekeeper of ensuring a product meets the environmental, health, and safety claims put forth.
Also, one more thing to make one’s blood boil, this years Farm Bill actually contained a blanket immunity stipulation for pesticide manufacturers that a group of dedicated lawmakers fought and managed to get stripped out at the last minute. https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/pro-pesticide-measure-cut-from-farm-bill/
Why would anyone do anything for this country when we are treated like this
It’s Trump and USA. Anyone surprised?
