Supreme Court Sides with Roundup Makers, Drawing Backlash
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of Bayer, the parent company of Monsanto, regarding pesticide labeling regulations. This decision has caused significant anger among supporters of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement.
In a 7-2 ruling authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court decided that states cannot impose warning requirements on pesticide labels that go beyond federal regulations. Consequently, this ruling has effectively blocked numerous lawsuits claiming that the chemical industry didn’t adequately warn consumers about potential cancer risks associated with herbicides.
Gary Raskin, president of American Right to Know, criticized the ruling as a substantial benefit to foreign chemical firms and a direct affront to American farmers and workers suffering from cancer due to Roundup exposure. He remarked that this decision places the chemical industry above the law, potentially increasing health risks for Americans.
Jason Davidson, a senior campaigner at Friends of the Earth, expressed his disappointment, emphasizing that the ruling hampers farmers’ and consumers’ ability to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable for the adverse effects of their products. He called for Congress to prioritize public health over pesticide industry interests by creating legal pathways for those harmed.
Zen Honeycutt, managing director at Moms Across America, remarked that the ruling sets a troubling precedent by favoring regulatory approval over the judicial review process and public justice access.
I’m literally sick. This is a devastating blow to all the families who trusted our justice system…
— Vani Hari (@thefoodbabe)
Honeycutt further asserted that the independent oversight provided by the separation of powers is essential, especially concerning products designed to be harmful. She stressed that no single entity should determine corporate liability when dangerous products are involved.
The Supreme Court’s decision follows a controversial executive order from the Trump administration intended to bolster domestic production of glyphosate, a widely used herbicide. This order faced severe backlash from advocates of the MAHA movement.
Bayer responded to requests for comments by referring to a recent press release stating that the court’s decision reflects robust support across various ideological lines and will considerably limit ongoing Roundup litigation. The company emphasized that glyphosate remains the most scrutinized crop protection tool globally and that adherence to federal safety standards should take precedence over state tort laws.
Vani Hari, a leading figure in the MAHA movement, labeled the decision a terrible blow to families who relied on the justice system, indicating that the verdict undermines accountability for Monsanto.
Rep. Thomas Massie pointed out that the ruling means individuals cannot sue Monsanto/Bayer for negligence in warning about health risks, calling it a blatant injustice that Congress must rectify.
SCOTUS says it can’t sue Monsanto/Bayer for failing to warn, even if their herbicides cause cancer…
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie)
MAHA podcaster Alex Clark criticized the Trump administration for influencing the court ruling to shield foreign chemical companies, claiming it betrays the promise of prioritizing American health.
Kayla Hancock from Protect Our Care accused the Trump administration of actions designed to benefit chemical industry financiers at the expense of public health and said the Supreme Court’s decision essentially permits glyphosate manufacturers to operate without accountability.
Bayer maintained that the Supreme Court’s ruling serves scientists, farmers, and the industry by clarifying regulations and aiding in reducing ongoing Roundup litigation, transforming the landscape of liability around glyphosate.
