{"id":41313,"date":"2026-04-02T00:01:17","date_gmt":"2026-04-02T04:01:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=41313"},"modified":"2026-04-03T16:40:14","modified_gmt":"2026-04-03T20:40:14","slug":"groups-tell-u-s-supreme-court-that-monsanto-shuns-its-responsibility-to-warn-of-product-hazards-files-brief","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2026\/04\/groups-tell-u-s-supreme-court-that-monsanto-shuns-its-responsibility-to-warn-of-product-hazards-files-brief\/","title":{"rendered":"Groups Tell U.S. Supreme Court that Monsanto Shuns Its Responsibility to Warn of Product Hazards, Files Brief"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, April 2, 2026) In advance of opening U.S. Supreme Court arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, Beyond Pesticides joined an amicus brief<\/a> filed yesterday and led by Center for Food Safety<\/a> (CFS), which challenges Bayer\/Monsanto\u2019s 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Click to access the 17 additional amicus briefs<\/a> filed in support of the respondents: Stand for Health Freedom<\/a>; The American Association for Justice and Public Justice<\/a>; Children\u2019s Health Defense<\/a>; 36 State Legislators<\/a>; The Local Government Legal Center, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and International Municipal Lawyers Association<\/a>; Former EPA Officials and Environmental Protection Network<\/a>; Philip Landrigan, MD, MSc, Lianne Sheppard, PhD, Christopher Portier, PhD, Dennis Weisenburger, MD, and Bruce P. Lanphear, MD, MPH<\/a>; Veterans of Foreign Wars<\/a>; Public Citizen<\/a>; United States Senator Cory Booker<\/a>; Heartland Health Research Alliance<\/a>; Farmworker Justice, Farmworker Association of Florida, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Migrant Clinicians Network, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, and Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network<\/a>; Texas, Florida and Ohio<\/a>; Farmer and Farmworker Groups<\/a>; New Mexico and Seventeen Other States<\/a>; Naomi Oreskes and Alexander A. Kaurov<\/a>; and, Roundup and Paraquat MDL Leadership<\/a>. Plus, please see the original brief<\/a> and supplement brief<\/a> of respondent John L. Durnell.<\/em><\/p>\n

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<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019 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<\/em> (FIFRA), which oversees minimum label warnings and language proposed by the registrants (chemical companies). (See here<\/a> and here<\/a>.) The brief critiques serious deficiencies in the regulatory review process, court findings vacating EPA\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Core Arguments in the Amicus Brief<\/h2>\n

Argument One: Monsanto Relies Heavily on EPA\u2019s Glyphosate Registration Review while Ignoring that the Review Was Held Unlawful, Contrary to Core Cancer Science Standards, and Vacated by the Court.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

This section of the brief can be separated into four main sub-arguments:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. EPA has been irreconcilably inconsistent in its cancer-causing classification for glyphosate;<\/li>\n
  2. EPA has improperly written off the results of animal carcinogenicity studies;<\/li>\n
  3. EPA ignored its own expert scientific advisory panels as it related to following the agency\u2019s own Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; and,<\/li>\n
  4. EPA was compelled to correct its own cancer risk assessment violations after the federal court\u2019s vacating of the 2020 Registration Review.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In the brief, CFS points out that \u201cMonsanto relies\u2014over and over again\u2014on EPA\u2019s 2020 glyphosate registration review decision and the 2017 ‘not likely’ cancer classification on which that registration was based.\u201d A three-judge panel of federal appeals court justices, Judges Friedland and Wallace of the Ninth Circuit and Judge Boggs of the Sixth Circuit, \u201cheld EPA\u2019s human health risk assessment was fundamentally flawed in its substance, as well as contrary to law and violative of well-settled cancer science standards.\u201d In this context, the amicus brief critiques their arguments, as follows:<\/p>\n

    Response 1:<\/strong> In the first response to Bayer\/Monsanto\u2019s argument, the brief calls out the inconsistent decisions that EPA has taken in its designation of glyphosate as \u201cnot likely to cause cancer.\u201d 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 <\/em>(\u201cCancer Paper\u201d). In the Cancer Paper, EPA determined that \u201cthe association between glyphosate exposure and risk of [non-Hodgkin Lymphoma] cannot be determined based on the available evidence.\u201d This contradicts the Cancer Guidelines classification of \u201cnot likely to be carcinogenic to humans\u201d since it only applies when the data \u201cis robust\u201d enough to back up the position that there is \u201cno basis for human hazard concern.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Response 2:<\/strong> The second response highlights EPA\u2019s clash with its own Cancer Guidelines by discounting \u201call tumors observed in animal studies as not being \u2018treatment-related\u2019 by improperly tipping the scales in favor of glyphosate\u201d on four counts. The first count references the use of \u201chistorical-control data\u201d in which EPA selectively chose data to \u201cdiscount studies indicating that glyphosate my cause tumors\u201d even though the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) responsible for reviewing the 2017 Cancer Paper concluded that there were \u201cnumerous instances in which historical-control data could add weight to tumor findings, but EPA never used the data in that manner.\u201d The second count highlights \u201cEPA\u2019s 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, \u2018when those same tumor incidences were apparently statistically significant using trend tests.\u2019\u201d The third count highlights EPA\u2019s disregard of tumor results in lab animals with higher doses of glyphosate, where EPA once again violated its own Cancer Guidelines by \u201cclaiming that the tumor results were \u2018not considered relevant to human health risk assessment based on the currently registered use pattern\u2019\u201d even though the agency is charged to \u201cfirst identify carcinogenic effects and mode of action, so that later steps can determine the risk of cancer based on human exposure levels.\u201d The fourth count spotlights that \u201cEPA improperly relied on a purported ‘limit dose’ of 1,000 mg\/kg\/day, that neither the Cancer Guidelines nor EPA\u2019s Health Effects Test Guidelines supported.\u201d The SAP also arrived at a similar conclusion.<\/p>\n

    Response 3:<\/strong> The third response, which was already alluded to in some of the previous analysis, posits that \u201cthe registration decision \u2018fails to abide by the [Cancer] Guidelines,\u2019 despite EPA\u2019s repeated invocation of them.”<\/p>\n

    Response 4: <\/strong>The fourth response highlights the serious nature in which EPA\u2019s 2020 Registration Review is in federal court. In this context, it is important to note that \u201cEPA has not made a court-upheld carcinogenicity determination for over thirty-three years,\u201d going back to its 1993 Reregistration Eligibility Decision.\u00a0<\/p>\n

    For additional analysis, please see the previous Daily News <\/em>here<\/a> and here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    Argument Two: Monsanto\u2019s Undue Influence Tainted EPA\u2019s Assessment<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

    There are several examples of pesticide industry interference with the regulatory system, specifically regarding EPA\u2019s registration review process for active ingredients, like glyphosate. The brief highlights a 2021 report by The Intercept, <\/em>The Department of Yes<\/a>, as<\/em> 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,<\/a> 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:<\/p>\n