30
Mar
Group Statement: Uphold Chemical Company Liability for Harming But Not Warning People; Sign On Through Today
(Beyond Pesticides, March 30, 2026) Through today, organizations, institutions, and corporations can sign on to a public statement calling for chemical companies to continue to be held liable for harming but not warning people who use their pesticide products. The statement, joined by grassroots, health, farm, farmworker, environmental and consumer groups, and socially responsible corporations, will be released tomorrow—just as U.S. Supreme Court begins on April 1 considering Monsanto/Bayer’s claim that the company is not responsible for failing to warn those whose cancer was found by a jury trial to be caused by its weed killer glyphosate (RoundupTM).
Groups can sign on to the statement by 5:00pm (Eastern) by clicking here.
In the case before the U.S. Supreme Court case, Monsanto v. Durnell, Monsanto/Bayer is seeking to overturn over $10 billion in jury verdicts and settlements and stop future litigation on their failure to warn about the potential cancer effects of glyphosate/RoundupTM. If Monsanto/Bayer wins, chemical companies will be able to legally withhold information on their pesticide product hazards not required to be disclosed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Bayer/Monsanto wants to overturn decades of legal precedent, including a previous Supreme Court decision, which establishes EPA-required, minimum pesticide product label language, but does not release companies from their responsibility to disclose all potential adverse effects that it knows or should have known about.
Health and environmental advocates say that with weak federal pesticide law and ongoing deregulation and dismantling of regulatory agencies, accountability in the courts is the last backstop for warning people about pesticide product hazards—creating an important degree of accountability and safety.
For background on the case, see Monsanto Brief Introduced as U.S. Supreme Court Considers Liability Immunity for Pesticide Manufacturers.
Beyond Pesticides explains that the sign-on statement is being circulated to express a united front against the disregard that chemical companies supporting this case have for human life and a sustainable environment. While there are several amicus briefs being filed by various health, environmental, farm and farmworker groups, space to join those briefs is extremely limited due to the permitted word count. The signatories to the statement are expressing the need for a legal standard, which current law has provided, that holds chemical companies accountable and incentives the development of safer products.
The invitation to sign on the statement is open to all organizations, companies, and institutions that wish to join.
Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Case in Monsanto v. Durnell
The chemical industry is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse decades of jurisprudence and shield manufacturers from liability associated with those who are harmed but not warned about pesticide adverse effects like cancer, neurological or immunological conditions, reproductive dysfunction, and other chronic illnesses. Briefs are due in the case by April 1, and oral arguments will be heard on April 27, with a decision anticipated in June.
The case before the Supreme Court, Monsanto v. Durnell, is preceded by thousands of successful lawsuits and settlements against Bayer/Monsanto for the company’s failure to warn about long-term hazards on their product label. After years of litigation, Bayer/Monsanto has been held to account for the cancer-causing effects of its weed killer glyphosate (RoundupTM). While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not recognize glyphosate to be cancer-causing, the International Agency for Research on Cancer finds it to be “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Because Monsanto sought to hide behind a weak regulatory review process, juries have issued verdicts that held the company responsible for failing to warn of the chemical product’s potential adverse effects. The Durnell case resulted in a jury verdict (in 2023) of $1.25 million, while the total number of jury verdicts and settlements may amount to over $10 billion in liability if the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts and over a hundred thousand additional plaintiffs make the same claim.
The chemical industry is seeking liability immunity under federal pesticide law (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), questioning whether compliance with that law, in the Court’s words, “preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim concerning a pesticide registered by EPA, where the agency has determined that a particular warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product label without EPA approval.” If successful, the Court would be overturning (reversing) its 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, 544 U.S. 431 (see analysis), which affirmed EPA’s approved label as minimum protection, without releasing manufacturers of the responsibility to seek approval for a label that exceeds EPA’s minimum. Pesticide manufacturers propose the text for their product labels and EPA ensures compliance with its minimum requirements, which does not preclude them from disclosing potential adverse effects they know or should have known about. EPA does not require a cancer warning (or other chronic effects typically) on pesticide product labels, even when the agency and the chemical manufacturer have identified a harm, including cancer, under EPA’s risk assessment review that it deems “acceptable.”
The Court in the Bates case made the important point that the notion of liability “emphasizes the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items.” In an age of deregulation, the ability to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for warning of hazards is the keystone to minimum protection of public health. Accountability in the courts serves the interest of farmers, farmworkers, consumers, and those potentially exposed to pesticide products, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily.
We, the undersigned, believe that the Supreme Court must affirm the current law that holds chemical manufacturers liable when they do not warn consumers on the product label about potential hazards associated with the use of their products.
It’s criminal for companies to apply products harmful to people and nature. To fail to require a warning makes our courts criminally accountable, as well.
April 1st, 2026 at 4:50 pm