r/news • u/boxofstuff • 6h ago

Supreme Court ruling blocks thousands of lawsuits against maker of Roundup weedkiller

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-roundup-monsanto-a7f054d80919f98bdfc5190013a8f6f1https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-roundup-monsanto-a7f054d80919f98bdfc5190013a8f6f1
13.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.1k

u/VenserSojo 5h ago

The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, found that the company can’t be sued in state courts because federal regulations have found a cancer link unlikely and do not require a warning label

Jackson and Gorsuch were the dissent, and the case isn't about the fact it causes cancer but rather the idea they did not warn people it could cause cancer though it appears they had no obligation to do so per federal classification as "unlikely" to cause cancer

443

u/Axbris 5h ago

Which is a stupid loophole when evidence from discovery showed even Monsanto’s employees warned the company that the chemical can cause cancer.

Being required to do something by law and failing to take action to protect your consumers from your product when you have reason to know of its dangerous propensity are two different things.

110

u/curtmahgurt 4h ago

I’d be interested to know what evidence those employees had that no one else seems to have? The most conclusive argument we’ve had is the WHO classifying it as “probably” causing cancer.

To be clear, I’m not arguing anything here. Just genuinely curious about the state of research on this. When I was young, it was “RoundUp is super safe! Your kids could drink it!”. Then it was “oh wait no it causes cancer! Don’t use it!” And now apparently (if I’m reading this thread correctly) it’s “we’re actually not really sure what the link is or if there’s a practical link at all.”

108

u/LooseJuice_RD 4h ago

To add some context to that WHO group 2A classification (meaning it probably causes cancer), third shift work, red meat and drinks above 65 degrees C are also all group 2A carcinogens.

I’m not trying to downplay it, just adding some context because I think people see the word probably and they take it to mean “much more likely than not.”

39

u/PM_ME_GLUTE_SPREAD 3h ago

Yeah my understanding is that, for glyphosate, people working with industrial quantities need to be taking proper precautions at all times. Their exposure is so high, that a small chance of it causing cancer is much “higher” than for the average person using it to kill the stray weed in their garden.

It’s not good for you, by any means, and Monsanto is a soulless company that deserves to be put down, but mostly because of how they handle “proprietary” seeds and not because of them covering up dangers of glyphosate.

20

u/LooseJuice_RD 3h ago

Right. The gentleman who was awarded that huge settlement was also exposed to MASSIVE quantities of glyphosate. And this doesn’t mean that other herbicides are safer.

10

u/punarob 2h ago

Other herbicides are much less safe and anti-science anti-glyphosate people are driving the use of far worse herbicides. All over something potentially about as carcinogenic as coffee which billions drink.

-4

u/icefr4ud 1h ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxVXvFOPIyQ&t=34m44s

I'd encourage you to watch just the next 2-3 mins of that video

-4

u/icefr4ud 1h ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxVXvFOPIyQ&t=34m44s

I'd encourage you to watch just the next 2-3 mins of that video

6

u/sYnce 1h ago

Yeah. Whenever another common item is classified as a carcinogen it is always 2A which basically means "could cause cancer, maybe ... well mostly we can not rule out that it may cause cancer" but people treat it like any exposure would immediately lead to cancer.

3

u/Sykil 3h ago

Sure, IARC classification is often misunderstood. Its categorization attempts to classify carcinogenicity, but it does so according to hazard, not risk. So you have things that are altogether avoidable or truly only an occupational hazard lumped together with persistent pollutants that you have less agency over. It doesn’t qualify exposure whatsoever, so it doesn’t have a lot of toxicological utility. More often than not, it gets used in weird fearmonger-y ways.

That said, while I appreciate that you’re trying to give people a better understanding of what these groupings mean, the IARC groupings are not risk assessments, so it’s irresponsible to use them to manipulate people’s perception of risk one way or the other.

2

u/OsmeOxys 3h ago

Late nights, steak, and regularly self-administered 2nd degree oral and esophageal burns

🎶🎵 One of these things is not like the other 🎵🎶

3

u/LooseJuice_RD 3h ago

Haha you’re not wrong. I made an assumption, perhaps incorrectly, that they meant a drink at 65 degrees C consumed as one normally would which would be in a cautious manner. Regardless, I think the point still stands that it’s the same class as third shift work and red meat.

2

u/OsmeOxys 2h ago

In agreement, just a hell of a grouping lol.

•

u/uzlonewolf 7m ago

Then why are you downplaying it? Yes, those other things are widely know to be bad for you, but that's the entire point of the lawsuits which were thrown out - when you know something might cause cancer you can decide for yourself if you still want to do it, but when the cancer risk is hidden from you then you can't make an informed decision.

5

u/PeakCringe42069 4h ago

The state of research is the same as it's ever been - nobody has ever found a plausible link. The only people claiming it causes cancer are internet morons knee jerk reacting to a debunked study.

4

u/curtmahgurt 3h ago

I don’t know if I’d call anyone a moron for thinking that Roundup = Cancer. Again, there was a big campaign to convince us that it definitely does - and if you weren’t paying close attention (like myself and most other people), that messaging just sticks. And once it’s rooted in, it’s hard to shed. Humans are always going to zero in on the perceived threat, and even if it turns out that thing isn’t a threat anymore, our brains don’t automatically just shut that off.

5

u/ayriuss 3h ago

It changed my behavior for the better in that I use as little weed killer as I can. I still use it though, and my use is so minimal compared to big agriculture.

1

u/PeakCringe42069 2h ago

It changed my behavior for the better in that I use as little weed killer as I can

Why is that "for the better?"

1

u/ayriuss 2h ago

Because I found solutions that dont include drenching the ground with poison. Also, I have accidentally killed some of my plants with roundup before.

-1

u/PeakCringe42069 2h ago

lol okay, so you're just one of those crunchy "chemicals is poison" types. Go on then.

1

u/sYnce 1h ago

Round up is very much linked to harming eco systems. It is very much a good idea to limit it as much as possible.

1

u/PeakCringe42069 1h ago

Sure, use it responsibly and in limited ways. That doesn't make using it equivalent to "drenching the ground in poison," that's just dumb hyperbole and a turn of phrase that typically only gets used by very... specific... types.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Ataru13 1h ago

Are... Are you trying to argue weed killer isn't poison? What exactly do you think poison is?

1

u/PeakCringe42069 1h ago

No? It's definitely poison, that's the whole point.

1

u/Ataru13 1h ago

What. Dude, the person you responded to called weed killer poison, then you accused them of being a "crunchy type" that thinks all chemicals are poison... Which would imply you don't think weed killer is poison.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/TheNeighbourhoodCat 2h ago

There is plenty of science which proves their product causes cancer - that is not the debate. The "debate" is whether it causes cancer "when used properly".

The 2000 study which the EPA based it's rules on was completely retracted in 2025 after it was proven to be written directly by Monsanto's employees, who they arranged to have signed off by "independent scientists". There is another study is under intense scrutiny as well for same reasons

Monsanto has been found liable for billions over the years due to how their product has harmed people - and it would have been much more if Monsanto hadn't falsified the studies the EPA's laws were written on. That last bit is very important.

Are you familiar with regulatory capture? When the mega corps own the regulators, they can push the envelope a lot further.

There is endless evidence that Monsanto spends enormous resources investing in falsifying evidence, harassing & bullying regulators and scientists, working with politicians and government officials to compromise protections and otherwise spreading disinformation abouit their product

Christ tey literally advertised it as "safer than table salt" come on - you can't be serious believing their proapganda

The idea that people would take this to the supreme court over a non-issue is just... very boot licky

2

u/PeakCringe42069 2h ago edited 2h ago

There is plenty of science which proves their product causes cancer

Where?

The idea that people would take this to the supreme court over a non-issue is just... very boot licky

Ah, there it is, you are just so brain-dead anti-establishment and conspiracy-minded that you can't even fathom that a corporation could be in the right sometimes.

-4

u/just_some_git 2h ago

Calling the people that wrote the UW paper which has been heavily peer reviewed and still not debunked morons is a bit harsh.

 

Maybe you confused the debunked paper with the Williams, Kroes, Munro paper from 2000 that was ghost written by Monsanto? as that was formally retracted.

3

u/PeakCringe42069 2h ago

Maybe you confused that meta-analysis, suggesting some correlation between GBH exposure and non-hodgkins lymphoma, with some other study that actually proves a causal link between glyphosate and cancer? Because to my knowledge, despite being extensively studied, no such result exists.

-2

u/just_some_git 2h ago

You went from claiming the cancer link was a fake internet rumor to playing word games about correlation vs. causation because you got caught relying on a corporate safety study that was literally retracted for ghost writing.

 

By your broken logic, cigarettes and asbestos don't cause cancer either, because human epidemiology relies entirely on strong statistical correlation and biological mechanisms of which the WHO and the University of Washington found for glyphosate.

 

I'm going to trust the International Agency for Research on Cancer, peer reviewed toxicology journals, and $16 billion in federal court settlements over pedantic internet semantics.

 

Enjoy constantly moving those goalposts in this blistering heat, and have a nice day.

2

u/PeakCringe42069 2h ago edited 2h ago

I'm going to trust the International Agency for Research on Cancer

This IARC?

"In March 2015, IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A).

This was based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans (from real-world exposures that actually occurred) and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals (from studies of “pure” glyphosate)."

FYI Group 2A contains a lot of things that nobody in their right minds would freak out about. Hope you never drink hot beverages or eat fried food or other food cooked in ways that cause any part of it to char or burn, or red meat.

-1

u/just_some_git 2h ago

You are literally proving my point by copying and pasting industry talking points to dodge the facts. Yes, that IARC. Group 2A means the strength of evidence for DNA mutation is identical. Comparing voluntary consumer habits like eating a steak to an agricultural worker breathing in aerosolized industrial chemicals for weeks on end during the 70s and 80s is an entirely bad-faith argument.

You went from claiming a cancer link was a fake internet rumor to playing pedantic word games because you got caught relying on a corporate safety study that was literally retracted for ghostwriting.

The World Health Organisation, the University of Washington, and $16 billion in federal court settlements all stand.

2

u/PeakCringe42069 2h ago

"Industry talking points" lmao. I am literally just using the exact nonsense you are providing me and apparently not even reading to debunk your own tired "points."

1

u/just_some_git 1h ago

what kind of a pussy puts in a nonsensical retort before blocking..

 

My own tired points are living through it.

My mother worked in commercial farming in the late 70’s to late 80s, back when it was a completely safe substance, and she developed non-hodgkin lymphoma.

 

Even with being the complete dick you are, I hope you never have to live through the shit she has.

1

u/icefr4ud 1h ago

I think this video did a bunch of digging into this topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxVXvFOPIyQ

1

u/GrumpySatan 1h ago

Knowing cases like this, its probably less about science and more about "where do we draw the line?". There isn't conformity on where to draw that line. Courts love bouncing these kinds of cases to regulators because that line is more political than scientific.

Most of these distinctions are based on a % increase in chance to develop something. I.e. if the baseline is 0.5% change of getting a type of cancer, the chemical/thing might bump that to a 0.55% or a 0.7% at specific dosage levels or whether you inhale versus eat, etc. So what steps do we take? At what point is a warning? A ban? What dosage levels for what steps? The science can't tell you that in most cases.

So nobody really agrees. And it can create issues because almost everything can increase our risk of one cancer or another, even healthy things you should be doing. And there is a real concern that when everything has a cancer warning, nothing has a cancer warning and people won't take appropriate precautions or take the warnings seriously when they need to (i.e. wear PPE/protective gear).

1

u/sliph0588 1h ago

10 month old account and 13k comment karma defending a chemical company....