02
Apr
Groups Tell U.S. Supreme Court that Monsanto Shuns Its Responsibility to Warn of Product Hazards, Files Brief
(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2026) In advance of opening U.S. Supreme Court arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell, Beyond Pesticides joined an amicus brief filed yesterday and led by Center for Food Safety (CFS), which challenges Bayer/Monsanto’s position that it should not be held liable for failing to warn consumers that the use of their pesticide products could cause cancer. The chemical company giant, along with the broader chemical and agribusiness industry, argues that they should be given immunity from litigation because their products are registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a claim that is disputed in detail in the amicus brief. Groups joining the brief include Consumer Federation of America, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP), Rural Coalition, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Center for Biological Diversity, Beyond Pesticides, and Food & Water Watch.
Click to access the 17 additional amicus briefs filed in support of the respondents: Stand for Health Freedom; The American Association for Justice and Public Justice; Children’s Health Defense; 36 State Legislators; The Local Government Legal Center, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and International Municipal Lawyers Association; Former EPA Officials and Environmental Protection Network; Philip Landrigan, MD, MSc, Lianne Sheppard, PhD, Christopher Portier, PhD, Dennis Weisenburger, MD, and Bruce P. Lanphear, MD, MPH; Veterans of Foreign Wars; Public Citizen; United States Senator Cory Booker; Heartland Health Research Alliance; Farmworker Justice, Farmworker Association of Florida, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Migrant Clinicians Network, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, and Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network; Texas, Florida and Ohio; Farmer and Farmworker Groups; New Mexico and Seventeen Other States; Naomi Oreskes and Alexander A. Kaurov; and, Roundup and Paraquat MDL Leadership. Plus, please see the original brief and supplement brief of respondent John L. Durnell.
Over 200 groups signed on to a joint statement endorsing the underlying principles and legal standards in the amicus brief being filed today. Please see Stop Chemical Company Secrecy of Pesticide Product Hazards.
In support of the positions taken in the amicus, over 200 grassroots, health, farm, farmworker, environmental, and consumer groups, socially responsible corporations, over 340 citizens from 46 states, and international partners signed on to a statement calling for policymakers to uphold chemical company liability for harming but not warning people who use their pesticide products.
Given deregulation and the dismantling of federal agency programs, advocates say chemical and allied industry campaigns in state legislatures and the U.S. Congress threaten to undermine the foundational rights of pesticide injury victims to seek restitution for harms caused by manufacturers’ products. Chief among the issues documented in the amicus brief are the numerous inadequacies of the pesticide registration standards and process of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which oversees minimum label warnings and language proposed by the registrants (chemical companies). (See here and here.) The brief critiques serious deficiencies in the regulatory review process, court findings vacating EPA’s decisions as flawed, and EPA-approved product labels that chemical companies use to hide pesticide effects that are known or should have been known to the chemical manufacturers.
Core Arguments in the Amicus Brief
Argument One: Monsanto Relies Heavily on EPA’s Glyphosate Registration Review while Ignoring that the Review Was Held Unlawful, Contrary to Core Cancer Science Standards, and Vacated by the Court.
This section of the brief can be separated into four main sub-arguments:
- EPA has been irreconcilably inconsistent in its cancer-causing classification for glyphosate;
- EPA has improperly written off the results of animal carcinogenicity studies;
- EPA ignored its own expert scientific advisory panels as it related to following the agency’s own Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; and,
- EPA was compelled to correct its own cancer risk assessment violations after the federal court’s vacating of the 2020 Registration Review.
In the brief, CFS points out that “Monsanto relies—over and over again—on EPA’s 2020 glyphosate registration review decision and the 2017 ‘not likely’ cancer classification on which that registration was based.” A three-judge panel of federal appeals court justices, Judges Friedland and Wallace of the Ninth Circuit and Judge Boggs of the Sixth Circuit, “held EPA’s human health risk assessment was fundamentally flawed in its substance, as well as contrary to law and violative of well-settled cancer science standards.” In this context, the amicus brief critiques their arguments, as follows:
Response 1: In the first response to Bayer/Monsanto’s argument, the brief calls out the inconsistent decisions that EPA has taken in its designation of glyphosate as “not likely to cause cancer.” EPA relied on its 2005 Cancer Guidelines to inform the 2020 registration decision, as well as its 2017 human health risk assessment and its 2017 Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential (“Cancer Paper”). In the Cancer Paper, EPA determined that “the association between glyphosate exposure and risk of [non-Hodgkin Lymphoma] cannot be determined based on the available evidence.” This contradicts the Cancer Guidelines classification of “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” since it only applies when the data “is robust” enough to back up the position that there is “no basis for human hazard concern.”
Response 2: The second response highlights EPA’s clash with its own Cancer Guidelines by discounting “all tumors observed in animal studies as not being ‘treatment-related’ by improperly tipping the scales in favor of glyphosate” on four counts. The first count references the use of “historical-control data” in which EPA selectively chose data to “discount studies indicating that glyphosate my cause tumors” even though the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) responsible for reviewing the 2017 Cancer Paper concluded that there were “numerous instances in which historical-control data could add weight to tumor findings, but EPA never used the data in that manner.” The second count highlights “EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the SAP had pointed out to EPA that its draft assessments had improperly discounted tumor incidents only because they were not statistically significant in pairwise comparison tests, ‘when those same tumor incidences were apparently statistically significant using trend tests.’” The third count highlights EPA’s disregard of tumor results in lab animals with higher doses of glyphosate, where EPA once again violated its own Cancer Guidelines by “claiming that the tumor results were ‘not considered relevant to human health risk assessment based on the currently registered use pattern’” even though the agency is charged to “first identify carcinogenic effects and mode of action, so that later steps can determine the risk of cancer based on human exposure levels.” The fourth count spotlights that “EPA improperly relied on a purported ‘limit dose’ of 1,000 mg/kg/day, that neither the Cancer Guidelines nor EPA’s Health Effects Test Guidelines supported.” The SAP also arrived at a similar conclusion.
Response 3: The third response, which was already alluded to in some of the previous analysis, posits that “the registration decision ‘fails to abide by the [Cancer] Guidelines,’ despite EPA’s repeated invocation of them.”
Response 4: The fourth response highlights the serious nature in which EPA’s 2020 Registration Review is in federal court. In this context, it is important to note that “EPA has not made a court-upheld carcinogenicity determination for over thirty-three years,” going back to its 1993 Reregistration Eligibility Decision.
For additional analysis, please see the previous Daily News here and here.
Argument Two: Monsanto’s Undue Influence Tainted EPA’s Assessment
There are several examples of pesticide industry interference with the regulatory system, specifically regarding EPA’s registration review process for active ingredients, like glyphosate. The brief highlights a 2021 report by The Intercept, The Department of Yes, as well as a 2019 investigative piece by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) and Carey Gillam, Monsanto Exec Reveals $17 Million Budget For Anti-IARC [International Agency for Research on Cancer], Pro-Glyphosate Efforts, highlighting some examples of the decades-long pattern of regulatory corruption. These are just examples of various other reporting and investigations that highlight the following takeaways:
- “Ghostwriting purportedly independent scientific papers;
- enlisting EPA officials in charge of the registration review to undermine the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) “probably carcinogenic to humans” cancer risk determination and achieve “not likely to be carcinogenic” and “no risks to human health” determinations from EPA;
- working to “kill” or suppress other independent scientific research; and
- extraordinary broad efforts to influence the public and media discourse.”
The brief also references the 2025 retraction of what was once considered a landmark study on glyphosate used to refute its links to cancer-causing effects. Beyond Pesticides covered the significance of this retraction in the context of public record and related investigations into EPA corruption in a previous Daily News, Scientific Deception by Monsanto/Bayer on Display with Retraction of Landmark Glyphosate Safety Study. The study was revealed as being ghostwritten by Monsanto employees, with the data based only on unpublished studies from Monsanto, ignoring data from studies that more thoroughly evaluated chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity. The recent retraction “came years after internal corporate documents first revealed in 2017 that Monsanto employees were heavily involved in drafting the paper,” which is one of several examples in which researchers and journalists have exposed “the many ways Monsanto manipulated the scientific record, influenced regulatory agencies, interfered in the peer-review process and used deceptive tactics to shape how regulators and the public view glyphosate,” Stacy Malkan of USRTK writes. This builds on a 2022 report, Merchants of Poison: How Monsanto Sold the World on a Toxic Pesticide, exposing not only Bayer/Monsanto malfeasance in its “promotion” of its glyphosate-based herbicide products, including the notorious Roundup®, but also, the broader landscape of corporate efforts to white- or green-wash products that companies know are harmful to people and the environment. (See Daily News here.)
There is also a USRTK tracker and report, “Tracing Bayer’s ties to power in Trump’s Washington,” (see more), finds that there have been significant lobbying investments by the multinational pesticide corporation just in the past year, including:
- “At least $9.19 million on federal lobbying in [2025]”;
- “16 key administration officials with ties to Bayer’s lobbying or legal network. Bayer and its lobbyists have access to people in power at the White House, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and even those in high level positions closest to Trump”;
- “45 people registered to lobby for Bayer under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and at least 13 outside lobby firms – seven of which are now among the highest-paid firms in D.C”; and,
- “More than 30 senior officials at lobby firms retained by Bayer have direct ties to Trump, having worked in one or both of his administrations or political campaigns.”
The report points out that the four main trade and agribusiness groups that promote and defend pesticide products (American Chemistry Council, CropLife America, National Corn Growers Association, and American Soybean Association) spent a “combined $22 million on federal lobbying in 2025, with 12 more outside lobby firms and 79 more registered lobbyists in the fourth quarter.” (See Daily News here.)
Argument Three: EPA’s Current Treatment of Pesticide Product Labels and Cancer Risk
This section of the brief can be isolated into two main sub-arguments:
- EPA approves carcinogenic pesticides without cancer warnings on their product labels; and
- Cancer risk assessments are not addressed by the vast majority of pesticide product labels.
On the first count, the brief highlights two recent analyses of EPA’s registration process, finding “EPA frequently approves potentially carcinogenic pesticides, but virtually never provides cancer warnings for users.” The first analysis conducted by CFS found that out of the 570 active ingredients (the ingredient in the formulation that manufacturers claim targets the organism) tested for carcinogenic potential since 1985, over one-third (35%) EPA classified as “possible human carcinogens”/ “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” (127) or as “probable/likely” human carcinogens,” while the labels do reflect this information for the most part. In a second review at the pesticide product level conducted by Center for Biological Diversity, there was a review of “more than 93,000 historic and currently approved pesticide labels for all active, so-called ‘end-use’ pesticide products currently available.” Cancer warnings appeared on “only 242 of the 22,147 pesticide labels (1 percent) that contain an ingredient the agency has designated as having ‘possible’ or “suggestive’ evidence of carcinogenic potential.” For pesticide products EPA designated as “probable” or “likely” carcinogenic to humans, only 69 of 4,919 product labels had cancer warnings.
For the second count, the brief underscores that “EPA only conducts scientific assessments of toxicity, including carcinogenicity, at the active ingredient level.” It continues: “EPA’s approval of registrant-drafted pesticide product labels does not include a cancer risk assessment, let alone any ‘findings’ by EPA of cancer safety.” Since the registrant is charged with supplying EPA with relevant information for label changes, it is important to note that EPA does not ask for a cancer warning nor “evaluates whether one is warranted.” EPA relies on existing data from the underlying registration to make its determinations, which in this case is the 1993 registration eligibility document.
Argument Four: EPA’s Pesticide Risk Review Is Neither Rigorous nor Continuous, Contrary to Monsanto’s Claims
This section of the brief can be isolated into three main sub-arguments:
- “Conditional” registrations underscore a gaping hole in the pesticide registration review process;
- Regardless of conditional or unconditional, there are major gaps in the risk assessment process in terms of testing whole formulation, failure to assess dermal exposure, consideration of acute versus chronic harms, and waivers of “required” studies, among others; and,
- EPA’s enforcement failure, delay, and inaction, particularly on glyphosate and other active ingredients.
In terms of the first count of this argument, the latest analysis publicly available is from a Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2013, which found that, “EPA staff have misused the term ’conditional registration,’ incorrectly classifying pesticide registrations as conditional when, for example, they require a label change, which is not a basis in statute for a conditional registration.” The Natural Resources Defense Council (2013) found that “as many as 65 percent of more than 16,000 pesticides were first approved for the market using this [conditional registration] loophole.” Both reports indicate that the actual number of conditional registrations is difficult to gauge. The brief continues: “While EPA claims to be improving these systems, its product registration database shows that from 2011 to 2023, 49% of EPA-issued product registrations were still conditional.” What was meant to be the exception has become the norm, undermining trust in the rigor of the registration review process more broadly.
The second count delves into a variety of issues with the pesticide registration review process, which can be explored further in depth starting on page 32 of the brief. Beyond Pesticides has covered gaps in the registration review process extensively, including requirements that EPA conduct a registration review of all pesticide active ingredients every 15 years. As Beyond Pesticides has stated, EPA’s rationale for registration review—that “science is constantly evolving, and new scientific information can come to light at any time and change our understanding of potential effects from pesticides,”—should guide the agency in its decisions, especially when previous decisions have depended on limited actual data, data waiver request rationales, and purported absence of new data or adverse incidents reported.
While Beyond Pesticides advocates for the allowance of substances compatible with organic standards that are protective of human health, biodiversity, and healthy ecosystems, it urges EPA to establish rigorous standards in its registration review of all materials. Currently, there is not only an absence of consideration for alternatives when reviewing pesticide active ingredients but also a lack of full consideration for endocrine disruption, endangered species, chemically sensitive populations, “inert” ingredients, aggregate and cumulative risks, and synergistic effects, just to name a few. (See more on regulatory deficiencies and EPA failures here and here.)
Scientists and advocates have long asked EPA to evaluate and regulate full formulations of pesticides, and their mixtures, instead of assessing active ingredients singularly. As the body of knowledge evolves, so must the systems for assessments that are meant to inform decisions that have a wide impact on human and ecosystem health, advocates say. The complex interactions among pesticide mixtures are not fully understood but represent a significant threat to human health. EPA fails to adequately regulate mixtures of chemicals to which organisms are exposed in the real world and risk assessments continue to be highly criticized as inadequately addressing the full range of adverse effects that put human health and the health of all organisms at risk. For more information, see Daily News Human Health Disregarded with Obsolete Regulations and Risk Management, Researchers Find.
The third count, simply put, highlights that EPA has failed to abide by its own standards in terms of reviewing pesticides every 15 years to determine whether they are still in compliance with FIFRA. “Despite its first approval in 1974, and a drastic increase in use and critical scientific evidence since 1993, EPA has yet to complete even one (lawful) registration review for the most widely used pesticide on the planet,” says the amicus brief. The amicus also references various other active ingredients that have failed to undergo full reviews, including dicamba, 2,4-D, and carbaryl. Monsanto claims that registrants are charged with reporting adverse effects of their registered products; however, “that does not include a warning trigger or even label review. This duty is only as useful as what the registrants choose to submit and includes no affirmative mechanism to update labeling.”
Over the lifetime of EPA’s existence, the agency has only canceled between 37 and 40 active ingredients, with EPA only issuing emergency suspensions twice in its history (the herbicides Dacthal (DCPA) in 2024 and 2,4,5-T, one of the building blocks of chemical weapon Agent Orange, in 1979). See Daily News here for further details on the significance of the Dacthal suspension.
The Chemical Manufacturer Controls the Label, Ultimately
Despite having information on pesticide carcinogenicity, EPA does not require, under its minimum standards of disclosure on the pesticide product label, anything other than warnings of acute or shorter-term effects of pesticides and related mitigation measures like personal protective equipment. This means that more comprehensive label warnings must be requested by the chemical manufacturer registering the pesticide that knows or should know of the longer-term effects. The brief states: “Contrary to Monsanto’s misrepresentations, EPA’s approval of registrant-drafted pesticide product labels does not include a cancer risk assessment, let alone any ‘findings’ by EPA of cancer safety. They simply refer back to the underlying registration decision (here, from 33+ years ago). Under EPA’s regulations, registrants effectively control the label, not EPA, and if they don’t ask for a cancer warning, EPA never evaluates whether one is warranted.”
Call to Action
You can sign up for Action of the Week and Weekly News Update to stay notified on ways you can take action to expand public investments and programs that expand organic land management, in agricultural contexts and on public green spaces, parks, and playing fields, to move beyond a reliance on synthetic materials.
After President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act of 1950 and issued an Executive Order (EO), Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides, U.S. Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) stood up to say “no.” They introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act (HR 7601) to undo the February 18 Executive Order, which is now being supported by a campaign to urge Congressional Representatives to cosponsor the bill.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
Source: CFS et al. Amicus Brief
