By Emmanuel Bobby
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to shield Bayer from certain state-level lawsuits over its Roundup weed killer has triggered widespread criticism from prominent members of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement, many of whom say they feel deeply disappointed by an outcome they believe favors corporate interests over public health.
The ruling has intensified tensions between influential MAHA activists and the Trump administration, with critics arguing that the decision weakens consumer protections and limits legal options for individuals who claim they developed cancer after years of exposure to the widely used herbicide.
In a 7-2 decision issued Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that Bayer, the manufacturer of Roundup, cannot be required under state law to include additional cancer warnings on its product labels when federal regulators have determined that such warnings are not required.
Legal experts say the ruling is expected to significantly reduce the number of lawsuits alleging that Roundup should carry stronger warnings about potential cancer risks.
The decision centers on glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and one of the most commonly used herbicides in the world.
For years, glyphosate has been the subject of scientific debate, regulatory reviews, and thousands of lawsuits filed by individuals who allege that prolonged exposure to the chemical caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a form of blood cancer.
The ruling has become a major point of frustration within the MAHA movement, a coalition of health-conscious activists that has gained influence in recent years by advocating for cleaner food, reduced chemical exposure, and increased government oversight of environmental toxins.
Many supporters of the movement had hoped the Trump administration would pursue stronger restrictions on pesticides and other chemicals they believe pose health risks.
Instead, Thursday’s decision reinforced concerns among some activists that large agricultural and chemical companies continue to wield significant influence over federal policy.
Among the most outspoken critics was Vani Hari, a prominent food activist widely known as “Food Babe.”
Hari criticized the court’s decision, arguing that it represented a victory for Bayer at the expense of consumers.
She said Congress should now intervene by passing legislation that restores legal protections for individuals seeking to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable.
Bayer acquired Monsanto—the original developer of Roundup—in 2018, inheriting thousands of lawsuits related to the herbicide.
The legal dispute before the Supreme Court involved Missouri resident John Durnell, who sued Monsanto in 2019 after claiming that two decades of Roundup use caused him to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
A jury ruled in Durnell’s favor in 2023 and awarded him $1.25 million in damages.
Bayer appealed the decision, arguing that federal pesticide regulations preempt state-law claims requiring additional warning labels.
The Supreme Court ultimately agreed.
Writing for the majority, the justices concluded that because federal regulators have determined glyphosate does not require a cancer warning, manufacturers cannot be held liable under state law for failing to include one.
The decision effectively limits similar lawsuits in state courts across the country.
The Trump administration supported Bayer’s position during the appeal.
That stance differed from the approach taken by the Biden administration in an earlier Roundup-related case, when federal lawyers urged the Supreme Court not to hear Bayer’s appeal.
At the center of the legal dispute is the Environmental Protection Agency’s assessment of glyphosate.
In 2020, during President Donald Trump’s first administration, the EPA concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans when used according to product instructions.
Environmental organizations challenged that determination, arguing that the agency had not adequately explained its scientific analysis.
A federal appeals court later agreed, directing the EPA to revisit its evaluation.
Although the agency has acknowledged the need for an updated review, it has not yet released a revised assessment.
Meanwhile, other scientific organizations have reached different conclusions.
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
That classification has remained central to arguments by plaintiffs who contend that Roundup poses serious long-term health risks.
Kelly Ryerson, another well-known MAHA activist who is often referred to online as “Glyphosate Girl,” said the Supreme Court’s decision has significantly damaged confidence among many supporters of the movement.
She argued that the ruling reflected a broader failure to prioritize public health over corporate interests and warned that voters would remember the issue during future elections.
The controversy also highlights a series of recent disagreements between MAHA activists and the Trump administration.
Earlier this year, President Trump signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to increase domestic production of glyphosate in an effort to support American agriculture.
The decision drew criticism from many within the movement, who had hoped for tighter regulation of pesticides rather than expanded production.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. supported the administration’s agricultural objectives but has also repeatedly described pesticides as inherently toxic.
Before joining the federal government, Kennedy worked as an attorney representing plaintiffs who claimed that Roundup exposure caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
During Senate testimony in April, he stated that he personally believes glyphosate can cause cancer.
The disagreement over Roundup is only one of several issues that have strained relations between MAHA advocates and federal policymakers.
Some activists have also criticized recent Food and Drug Administration decisions expanding access to fruit-flavored electronic cigarettes.
Others opposed Environmental Protection Agency actions rolling back mercury emission standards and proposals to rescind drinking water limits for certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS or “forever chemicals.”
Many supporters argue that these policy decisions conflict with the movement’s goal of reducing exposure to potentially harmful environmental contaminants.
Nutritionist Michaela Bardossas, who works with the advocacy organization Moms Across America, previously expressed concern that many MAHA supporters have become increasingly frustrated with the pace of policy changes.
She argued that pesticide policy, in particular, has become one of the movement’s most contentious issues.
Within the Supreme Court itself, the ruling was not unanimous.
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
In her dissenting opinion, Jackson argued that the majority’s interpretation improperly limits access to the courts for individuals who believe they have been harmed by pesticide exposure.
She wrote that the decision unnecessarily closes the courthouse doors to plaintiffs seeking legal remedies.
Bayer welcomed the ruling, describing it as an important victory for science, agriculture, and regulatory certainty.
Company officials said consistent federal standards are essential for innovation and for providing farmers with reliable crop protection products.
Despite the court’s decision, opponents of glyphosate are now shifting their attention to Congress.
Representative Anna Paulina Luna of Florida announced plans to introduce legislation that would remove liability protections for pesticide manufacturers.
She argued that companies should be held legally accountable if they knowingly fail to disclose health risks associated with their products.
Luna has previously opposed legislative efforts that would have provided additional legal protections for Bayer in disputes involving Roundup.
Meanwhile, many researchers continue to debate the health effects of glyphosate.
At an international scientific symposium held in Seattle earlier this year, dozens of researchers concluded that available evidence supports a link between glyphosate exposure and an increased risk of certain cancers, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Some scientists have also highlighted methodological differences between the research considered by the EPA and that reviewed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
According to several researchers, the IARC relied primarily on peer-reviewed academic studies, while the EPA incorporated a larger number of unpublished industry-funded studies into its assessment.
Lianne Sheppard, a professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Washington, said evidence supporting a cancer connection has continued to strengthen since the IARC issued its classification in 2015.
As debate over glyphosate continues in scientific, legal, and political circles, the Supreme Court’s decision is expected to shape future litigation while intensifying calls from health advocates for Congress and federal regulators to revisit the nation’s pesticide policies.
For supporters of the Make America Healthy Again movement, the ruling represents not only a significant legal setback but also a defining moment in their ongoing campaign for stricter oversight of chemicals they believe pose risks to public health.
Original article
Comments