The Supreme Court case involving Monsanto’s parent company, Bayer, and its weedkiller, Roundup, may not seem it, but it is a question of the globalization of American law at the expense of American sovereignty.
The case at hand is about whether lawsuits against Monsanto should be allowed to continue. The lawsuits in question are over Roundup failing to warn that Roundup contains glyphosate, an alleged carcinogen and the most common weedkiller in the country. Roughly 90% of corn acreage in the U.S. is genetically modified to resist weedkillers, the vast majority of which is “Roundup Ready” corn designed to resist glyphosate.
GLYPHOSATE IS STRAINING THE MAHA COALITION
The issues leading to this case go back to the 2019 jury finding in California that Bayer/Monsanto owed two plaintiffs $2 billion over their claim that Roundup gave them cancer. Importantly, this was a decision made by a jury, not by a scientific body. The specifics of the case, Monsanto v. Durnell, go back to a 2023 jury finding in St. Louis, Missouri, which awarded the plaintiff $1.25 million in compensatory damages.
What makes this notable is that the Environmental Protection Agency does not consider glyphosate to be a carcinogen. In fact, one month before the California jury’s finding, the EPA again reaffirmed that there was no cancer risk from glyphosate in its judgment. The then-EPA assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention said at the time that “There’s no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer” and that “There’s no risk to public health from the application of glyphosate.”
For that matter, the European Union’s top food and chemical bodies also do not view glyphosate as a carcinogen. According to the European Commission’s website, “the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)” most recent assessment “showed that there is currently no scientific or legal justification for a ban” of glyphosate, which it describes as “one of the most used and the most extensively studied pesticides in the world.”
So, where does this claim to the contrary come from? It is a claim made by the World Health Organization, the corrupt body of unelected United Nations bureaucrats. The claim itself, made in 2015, is that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans and “sufficient” evidence of “cancer in experimental animals” using “pure” glyphosate.
What this means is that trial lawyers are manipulating gullible juries using claims from the U.N. that undercut the EPA. This is a backdoor implementation of U.N. policies that subvert the American legislative and executive branches, where the EPA is accountable to Americans through Congress and presidential elections.
GREENPEACE CAN’T ASK FOREIGN COURT TO UNDO AN AMERICAN RULING
This is not a sustainable form of governance, which the Trump administration recognizes, given that the Department of Justice is siding with Bayer/Monsanto in this case. The Make America Healthy Again portion of the Right, which is upset at the administration for this, is effectively supporting subverting American governance to U.N. globalism.
Have whatever opinion about Monsanto that you want, but Monsanto winning this case at the Supreme Court would not be a judgment of the company, but a repudiation of subverting American laws and regulations to unaccountable, globalist bureaucrats.