Roundup

Mollie Engelhart, a MAHA-aligned farmer, hosted a retreat for pro-MAHA leaders but expressed disillusionment with the Trump administration's support for Bayer's Roundup. The administration's backing of Roundup, including an executive order labeling glyphosate-based herbicides as critical to national security, has caused tension with MAHA-aligned supporters who expected stronger action on chemical-laden food systems.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Monsanto v. Durnell that states cannot impose pesticide warnings differing from federal standards, affecting Minnesota's ability to label glyphosate-based Roundup with additional health warnings. The 7-2 decision overturned a Missouri jury's award to a farmer who claimed Roundup caused his cancer, citing federal preemption of state strict liability doctrines.

Prominent activists with the 'Make America Healthy Again' (MAHA) movement are expressing outrage and feeling betrayed after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto, stating the company does not need to include a cancer risk warning on its Roundup weedkiller. The decision has sparked backlash within the movement.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that state courts cannot hold Monsanto liable for labeling issues in pesticides like Roundup, as federal law preempts such claims. The decision dismissed a $1.25 million verdict awarded to a man who claimed Roundup caused his cancer, with justices citing compliance with EPA regulations. The ruling split the court, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

The Supreme Court ruled against lawyers in a case involving Roundup, a weedkiller, where a Missouri man claimed it caused his cancer and sought $1.25 million. The lawsuit argued the company should have included a cancer warning on the product label.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto in Roundup litigation, stating federal pesticide law preempts state failure-to-warn claims when the EPA has not mandated a cancer warning on the product label. The case, Monsanto v. Durnell, did not resolve whether Roundup causes cancer but focused on legal preemption under federal law.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bayer in the Roundup case, limiting future lawsuits against the company and its subsidiary Monsanto. Patti Goldman of Earthjustice discussed the decision on ChicagoLIVE.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that federal law blocks state failure-to-warn lawsuits against Bayer, the parent company of Monsanto, regarding Roundup weed killer labels. The decision holds that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state claims seeking cancer warnings on EPA-approved Roundup labels, marking a setback for cancer patients pursuing legal action.

A US Supreme Court ruling could protect Bayer from thousands of lawsuits linking its herbicide Roundup to cancer. Protests occurred outside the Supreme Court in Washington against the decision to drop these lawsuits.

The Supreme Court issued rulings in four cases, including decisions on Temporary Protected Status, Hawaii's concealed-carry law, asylum eligibility, and pesticide labeling. The White House described the immigration-related rulings as a 'tremendous win' for the Trump administration. The court also denied a stay of execution for Dusty Ray Spencer, who was later executed in Florida.

Bayer faces numerous lawsuits over its pesticide Roundup due to not adding cancer warnings, despite US regulators opposing such a warning. A recent Supreme Court win may impact the company's potential billions in payments.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that state courts cannot hold Monsanto liable for labeling issues in Roundup, dismissing a $1.25 million verdict for a man who claimed the herbicide caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The decision emphasized federal law preemption under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), but faced criticism from dissenting justices over consumer protection concerns.

The Supreme Court ruled to end deportation protections for many Haitians and Syrians, dismissed Monsanto's liability in Roundup lawsuits, and struck down a Hawaii gun law. The decisions were discussed with Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Roundup's manufacturer, overturning a Missouri jury award for a man who claimed the herbicide caused cancer. The decision is expected to block thousands of similar lawsuits. Geoff Bennett discussed the topic with Dr. Chadi Nabhan, author of a book on the Monsanto trials.

MAHA leaders expressed betrayal over the Supreme Court's ruling on Roundup weed killer. The article mentions Roundup bottles available at a Lowe's Garden Center in Burbank, Calif.

The Supreme Court blocked a Roundup cancer lawsuit in a 7-2 decision, ruling federal law prevents state failure-to-warn claims against Monsanto. The ruling overturned a $1.25 million jury award to John Durnell and is expected to dismiss thousands of similar lawsuits, though a $7.25 billion class-action settlement remains intact. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing the decision relies on a non-existent labeling requirement.

The Supreme Court blocked a lawsuit alleging Roundup weed killer causes cancer, ruling 7-2 that federal law prevents state failure-to-warn claims against Monsanto. The decision overturned a $1.25 million award to plaintiff John Durnell, while a $7.25 billion class-action settlement remains pending. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing the ruling was based on a non-existent labeling requirement.

The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bayer, blocking thousands of lawsuits alleging its Roundup weedkiller caused cancer due to inadequate warning labels. The decision supports President Donald Trump's administration but faces criticism from the 'Make America Healthy Again' movement.

The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bayer in Roundup cancer lawsuits. Bayer, which acquired Roundup in 2018, stated the decision benefits science and farmers. The ruling faced criticism from both Republicans and Democrats.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Bayer, the maker of Roundup, blocking state court lawsuits over failure-to-warn claims about cancer risks. The decision, which aligns with federal regulatory findings, is expected to end thousands of litigation cases but faces criticism from plaintiffs' lawyers. Bayer plans to proceed with a $7.25 billion settlement to resolve remaining claims, while Missouri resident John Durnell, who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using Roundup, was the lead plaintiff in the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that state courts cannot hold Monsanto liable for Roundup's labeling, stating federal law preempts such claims. The decision overturned a $1.25 million award to a man who claimed Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh's majority opinion and a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Monsanto, holding that state lawsuits against the company for failing to warn consumers about Roundup's potential cancer risks are preempted by federal pesticide labeling laws. The majority opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) bars states from imposing additional labeling requirements beyond those approved by the EPA, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing the ruling creates a non-existent labeling requirement.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that state courts cannot hold Monsanto liable for labeling shortcomings in pesticides like Roundup, as federal law preempts such claims. The decision overturned a $1.25 million verdict awarded to John Durnell, who claimed Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that state courts cannot hold Monsanto liable for labeling shortcomings in Roundup, citing federal preemption under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The decision overturned a $1.25 million Missouri verdict awarded to John Durnell, who claimed Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that federal law protects Monsanto from Roundup cancer lawsuits, as the EPA's approval of the product's label without a cancer warning preempts state failure-to-warn claims.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that federal law preempts state liability claims against Monsanto over Roundup's labeling, overturning a $1.25 million verdict awarded to a Missouri man who claimed the herbicide caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The decision, with Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion and Justice Jackson's dissent, held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) regulates pesticide labels, preventing states from imposing additional requirements.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that state courts cannot hold companies liable for labeling shortcomings in pesticides like Monsanto's Roundup, as federal law preempts such claims. The decision overturned a $1.25 million Missouri verdict awarded to John Durnell, who claimed Roundup caused his cancer, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 to block thousands of lawsuits against Bayer, the maker of Roundup weedkiller, citing federal regulations that do not require cancer warnings. The decision allows Bayer to proceed with a $7.25 billion class-action settlement while dismissing claims based on failure-to-warn allegations.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 to block thousands of lawsuits against Bayer, the maker of Roundup weedkiller, citing federal regulations that found a cancer link unlikely. The decision, a victory for Bayer, follows a case involving Missouri resident John Durnell, who was awarded $1.25 million by a jury after developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma from Roundup use.

The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the former Monsanto company, blocking thousands of state lawsuits over Roundup's label warnings. The 7-2 decision, led by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, centers on claims that Roundup's ingredient causes cancer, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

A coalition of chemical manufacturers and industry groups has launched a national effort since 2024 to pass 'immunity laws' shielding pesticide companies from lawsuits, despite growing evidence linking pesticides to health issues like cancer and Parkinson's disease. Over 57,000 pesticide products are registered in the U.S., and opponents argue EPA-approved labels are insufficient to protect users from undisclosed risks.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on whether lawsuits can be filed against pesticide makers over cancer claims. Studies show a geographic correlation between heavy pesticide use and higher cancer rates, and agrichemical companies like Bayer face thousands of lawsuits. The Trump administration and pesticide industry have pushed for liability shield laws, while advocacy groups challenge these efforts.

Bayer’s proposed $7.25 billion Roundup settlement is challenged as unconstitutional in a legal filing, alleging it violates due process by favoring lawyers with $675 million in fees while offering minimal compensation to cancer victims. Critics argue the deal allows Bayer to continue selling glyphosate-based herbicides without cancer warnings and binds future users to the settlement terms.

The 'Make America Healthy Again' (MAHA) movement succeeded in removing pesticide liability language from a House farm bill but lost support for its nominee to surgeon general. The vote showed MAHA's influence on food policy, while the withdrawal of Casey Means' nomination highlighted tensions over vaccine messaging and public health alignment.

The Supreme Court is considering a case on how to label risks associated with a popular weed killer, which could impact thousands of lawsuits against Monsanto, now owned by Bayer. The decision may influence legal outcomes related to Roundup, a widely used herbicide.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a landmark case involving Bayer's Roundup weedkiller, which contains glyphosate. The case centers on whether the chemical is safe and whether the company is liable for health risks linked to its use.

The Supreme Court will hear a case that could limit antipesticide lawsuits, pitting the Make America Healthy Again movement against the Trump administration. The case, requested by Monsanto, involves the weedkiller Roundup and its liability issues.

A former gardener who used Roundup weedkiller for years is now battling cancer and pursuing legal action against the product's manufacturer. The case highlights concerns about the safety of Roundup, a widely used herbicide linked to health risks.

The US Supreme Court will hear a case involving glyphosate, a pesticide in Roundup linked to cancer, which could limit consumers' ability to sue companies for failure to warn about product risks. The chemical was classified as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization in 2015.

The Supreme Court will hear a case that could limit liability in pesticide lawsuits, pitting the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement against the Trump administration. The case, requested by Monsanto, centers on Roundup, a weedkiller frequently involved in litigation.