The U.S. Supreme Court today heard arguments in a case that will determine if pesticide companies can be held liable for health harms caused by their products if the EPA doesn't require those health warnings on product labels. A man who alleges that Roundup weedkiller caused his cancer brought the case against Bayer. A lower court awarded the man $1.25 million. Bayer is seeking to have the ruling overturned.

(Children's Health Defense) In widely anticipated oral arguments today, the U.S. Supreme Court gave no clear signal as to whether it will side with Bayer, which is seeking to avoid lawsuits related to its Roundup weedkiller, or a lower court, which ordered Bayer to pay $1.25 million to a man who alleges Roundup caused his cancer.

At issue is whether pesticide companies are immune from lawsuits for failing to warn consumers about health harms if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) doesn't require the companies to include those warnings on their product labels.

Today's arguments stemmed from a lawsuit filed in 2019 against Monsanto by John Durnell, who said he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup for years. Studies have linked glyphosate, the key active ingredient in Roundup, to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Durnell sued Monsanto, which originally developed and marketed Roundup, for failing to warn users about the product's cancer risk.