Supreme Court Rules for Roundup Manufacturer in Cancer Case

Why it matters locally: Iowa, a leading agricultural state, sees widespread use of herbicides like Roundup by farmers, landscapers, and homeowners. This Supreme Court decision could impact future legal avenues for individuals in Iowa who attribute health issues to exposure to similar products.

The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to overturn a jury award in a case where a Missouri man claimed that exposure to Roundup caused his cancer. The decision favored the herbicide's manufacturer and is expected to affect the viability of thousands of pending lawsuits filed in courts nationwide. The jury had previously awarded the plaintiff compensation. The Supreme Court's majority opinion reversed that judgment, altering the legal standards that govern such claims. Dr. Chadi Nabhan, who authored a book examining the Monsanto trials and litigation over the herbicide, discussed the ruling's implications. Nabhan has written extensively on the legal battles surrounding Roundup exposure claims. Scientific research on the herbicide's health effects has produced conflicting findings. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate, Roundup's active ingredient, as probably carcinogenic in 2015. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reached a different conclusion in 2020, stating the chemical was unlikely to pose a cancer risk to humans at the exposure levels Americans typically encounter. Farmers, landscapers and homeowners have used Roundup for decades as a broad-spectrum herbicide. The product became one of the world's most widely used agricultural chemicals after its introduction in the 1970s. Plaintiffs in the litigation attributed their cancers to occupational or residential contact with the herbicide. They sought compensation from the manufacturer based on allegations that the company failed to adequately warn consumers about potential health risks. The court's decision removes a major avenue for additional lawsuits to proceed. Legal experts said the ruling sets a precedent that will make it substantially harder for future plaintiffs to bring similar cases to trial.