Additional Coverage:
- ‘The decision is sickening’: MAHA leaders feel betrayed by Supreme Court ruling on Roundup weed killer (nbcnews.com)
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to shield Bayer from state-level lawsuits requiring cancer warnings on its weed killer Roundup has left many prominent health advocates feeling deeply betrayed. The ruling effectively bars thousands of claims that glyphosate, Roundup’s key ingredient, poses cancer risks-despite mounting scientific evidence suggesting a link.
Members of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement, including well-known figures like Vani Hari (aka “Food Babe”) and Kelly Ryerson (“Glyphosate Girl”), have long campaigned against chemical exposure in food and agriculture. They had hoped for stricter oversight and transparency regarding glyphosate, which some studies associate with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers.
Their concerns were fueled by past rallies and even direct meetings with former President Donald Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., both of whom have expressed mixed positions on pesticide regulation.
Thursday’s 7-2 Supreme Court ruling sided with Bayer, the company that acquired Monsanto-the original maker of Roundup-in 2018. The Court concluded that federal regulations preempt state laws on labeling because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had determined glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer.
This decision overturns a prior $1.25 million jury award to John Durnell, a Missouri man who blamed his cancer on decades of Roundup use. Notably, the Trump administration supported Bayer’s appeal, while the Biden administration had previously urged the Court to reject it.
The EPA’s 2020 assessment, made during the Trump era, declared glyphosate unlikely to be carcinogenic, but this finding has been legally challenged and criticized by environmental groups and scientists alike. Internationally, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015, a conclusion supported by numerous peer-reviewed studies.
MAHA activists have voiced sharp disappointment with the Trump administration, accusing it of prioritizing corporate interests over public health. Ryerson condemned the ruling as a “domestic chemical attack,” warning that it would influence voter sentiment. Some movement leaders have also criticized recent regulatory decisions expanding access to flavored e-cigarettes and rolling back environmental protections, expressing frustration over what they see as broken promises.
Despite this setback, advocates are now focusing their efforts on Congress. Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) announced plans to introduce legislation aimed at removing liability protections for pesticide manufacturers, holding them accountable for the health impacts of their products.
Scientists studying glyphosate continue to debate the evidence, with many asserting that the EPA’s conclusions are less rigorous than those of the IARC, partly due to differences in the studies reviewed. Lianne Sheppard, a University of Washington professor, affirmed that the cancer risk evidence has only strengthened since the IARC’s 2015 report.
As this controversy unfolds, the divide between regulatory agencies, the courts, and public health advocates remains stark, underscoring ongoing debates about chemical safety, corporate responsibility, and the future of agricultural practices in the United States.