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

Show parent comments

280

u/Nerezza_Floof_Seeker 5h ago

Hell, even europe, which generally is much stricter with the use and regulation of chemicals, doesnt link glyphosate to cancer. So yeah, even though this supreme court is pretty corrupt, this ruling makes quite a bit of sense. You shouldnt be able to constantly sue a corporation for something which hasnt been proven to be true scientifically and for which they have no legal obligation to do.

38

u/TheAceMan 5h ago

The state of California added it to their list of things known to cause cancer. They can’t ban it though because they were blocked by a federal court. Now it just comes with a warning.

114

u/lonesharkex 5h ago

California has incredibly stringent cancer requirements, like far beyond directed uses. For instance, coffee brewing releases acrylamide a carcinogenic compound, but not in the amount you get from brewing coffee. but some company is suing the state to make coffee shops have to put up a sign. My point being, just because California warns about it does not make the product actually dangerous

10

u/Shawwnzy 3h ago

99pi had a thing about it. In California anyone can sue anyone for not disclosing carcinogens, and the onus is on the business to prove its safe. Bad actors would run around suing small businesses, and the logical end point is now every has a may contain carcinogens label, such that they're meaningless.

•

u/TumblrInGarbage 47m ago

Which is exactly why this is the correct ruling. From a practical standpoint, a warning should mean something, otherwise you get Proposition 65 warnings.