Lawmakers to Monsanto: Hiding cancer risks won’t be protected by law

• Congressional bill aims to overturn a Supreme Court ruling that shielded pesticide companies from lawsuits over undisclosed cancer risks.
• The Americans vs. Poisonous Pesticides Act would restore consumers’ right to sue manufacturers for concealing health hazards.
• Under current law, EPA-approved labels grant immunity from state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits, even when cancer risks are omitted.
• The bill allows manufacturers to update pesticide labels quickly based on new evidence of undisclosed dangers.
• Bipartisan sponsors argue the legislation closes a legal loophole that protects corporate silence over public safety.

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers introduced legislation July 21 to require pesticide manufacturers to disclose cancer risks on product labels, directly challenging a Supreme Court decision in June that shielded companies like Bayer’s Monsanto from lawsuits alleging they failed to warn consumers about potential harm. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) led the effort alongside Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), and Thomas Massie (R-KY) in proposing the Americans vs. Poisonous Pesticides Act, H.R. 9807, which would overturn the court’s ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell and restore the right of consumers to sue chemical manufacturers for concealing health risks.

What the Supreme Court ruling changed

In June, the Supreme Court ruled that federal approval of pesticide labels by the Environmental Protection Agency bars state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits, even when plaintiffs allege manufacturers omitted serious health risks like cancer. The decision broke with precedent set in the 2005 case Dow Chemical v. Bates, where the court recognized that lawsuits give manufacturers “a ‘strong incentive’ to change the label” and stressed “the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items.”

Under the court’s new interpretation, an EPA-approved label effectively grants chemical companies immunity from litigation, regardless of whether scientific evidence later reveals undisclosed dangers. The ruling followed Monsanto’s exposure to billions of dollars in jury verdicts and settlements over claims that its glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup caused cancer without adequate warning.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling created a loophole where EPA silence can be used to shield corporate silence,” Luna said in a statement. “Families harmed by dangerous products should not lose their right to justice simply because a federal agency failed to require a warning.”

How the bill would restore accountability

The bill targets a specific legal gap: right now, once the EPA signs off on a pesticide label, that approval alone can be enough to shut down a state lawsuit, even if the label left out a known cancer risk. The Americans vs. Poisonous Pesticides Act would close that gap. Under the bill, an EPA-approved label would still count as evidence a product meets federal standards, but it could no longer be used as an automatic shield against claims that a company failed to warn the public.

Manufacturers would also gain a faster route to update labels on their own — without waiting on the EPA — whenever a government report, independent study, company data, or a whistleblower tip flags a possible undisclosed risk.

“Giant corporations do not need a liability shield when their product harms individuals. They need accountability. Americans deserve protection,” DeLauro said.

The measure would apply to pending and future civil actions, including cases on appeal, ensuring that plaintiffs whose cases were dismissed following the Supreme Court’s ruling can still seek justice.

Bipartisan momentum builds

The legislation builds on earlier bipartisan votes in the House, including 73 Republicans who voted with Democrats in April to strip liability protections for pesticide manufacturers from the Farm Bill. The bill’s four sponsors span the political spectrum, and Massie called the ruling itself indefensible on fairness grounds even if legally sound. “In Monsanto v. Durnell, the Supreme Court ruled that Monsanto/Bayer can’t be sued for omitting a warning even if their herbicides do cause cancer,” Massie said. “Even if the legal reasoning of the court is sound, it’s a blatant travesty of justice. Congress and the president can fix this, and we absolutely should.”

The EPA, meanwhile, is still reviewing glyphosate’s safety and has left the current label in place in the interim, leaving American families to shoulder the risk while Washington decides whether corporate liability shields matter more than the public’s right to know. Pingree said the bill restores a basic principle: “If a company learns its product may be harming people or the environment, it has a responsibility to say so, not hide behind a federal label approved years earlier. No one should lose their right to seek justice because a chemical company found a legal loophole.”

Sources for this article include:

BeyondPesticides.org

Luna.House.gov

DailySignal.com