The United States Supreme Court has ruled that federal law precludes state-level lawsuits against the manufacturer of Roundup for failing to provide cancer warnings on product labels.

美國最高法院裁定，由於 Roundup 製造商未能在產品標籤提供癌症警告，聯邦法律排除在州級別對其提起訴訟。

The judicial determination in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell centered on the application of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic and has not mandated a warning label, state-law claims regarding a failure to warn are preempted. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, authoring the majority opinion, asserted that state tort claims cannot impose labeling requirements that differ from or supplement those established by the EPA. This ruling overturned a previous Missouri jury verdict that had awarded $1.25 million to John Durnell, who alleged the development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma following prolonged exposure to the herbicide.

Monsanto Co. v. Durnell 的司法裁決重點在於《聯邦殺蟲劑、殺菌劑及殺鼠劑法》(FIFRA) 的應用。最高法院以 7 比 2 的裁決認為，由於美國環境保護署 (EPA) 已判定草甘膦 (glyphosate) 不太可能致癌，且未強制要求標記警告標籤，因此關於「未能警告」的州法索賠被優先排除。撰寫多數派意見書的 Brett Kavanaugh 法官主張，州級侵權索賠不能強加與 EPA 建立的不同或補充性標籤要求。此裁決推翻了先前密蘇里州陪審團的判決，該判決原先判給 John Durnell 125 萬美元，他指稱在長期接觸該除草劑後患上非霍奇金淋巴瘤。

Stakeholder positioning reveals a significant divergence in institutional perspectives. The Trump administration supported the manufacturer, arguing that the EPA maintains the sole regulatory authority to determine necessary health warnings. Conversely, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented, with Justice Jackson contending that the majority misinterpreted the scope of FIFRA and effectively denied remedies to injured plaintiffs. This legal outcome has created a political schism between the administration and the 'Make America Healthy Again' (MAHA) movement, whose adherents advocate for stricter pesticide regulations and have characterized the administration's support of the company as a betrayal of public health.

利益相關者的定位揭示了機構觀點的顯著分歧。川普政府支持製造商，認為 EPA 擁有決定必要健康警告的唯一監管權。相反，Ketanji Brown Jackson 和 Neil Gorsuch 法官持有異議，Jackson 法官認為多數派誤解了 FIFRA 的範圍，實際上剝奪了受傷原告的救濟途徑。這一法律結果在政府與「讓美國再次健康」(MAHA) 運動之間造成了政治分裂，後者的支持者主張採取更嚴格的農藥監管，並將政府對該公司的支持定性為對公眾健康的背叛。

From a corporate and economic standpoint, the ruling provides substantial regulatory clarity for Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018. The company has faced approximately 200,000 claims and has previously allocated $16 billion for settlements, including a proposed $7.25 billion class-action agreement. While the decision is expected to result in the dismissal of thousands of failure-to-warn claims, it does not preclude litigation based on product design. The ruling's implications may extend to other agrochemicals, such as Syngenta's paraquat, where similar health-related litigation is pending.

從企業和經濟角度來看，該裁決為 2018 年收購 Monsanto 的拜耳 (Bayer) 提供了顯著的監管明確性。該公司面臨約 20 萬項索賠，先前已撥款 160 億美元用於和解，其中包括一份擬定的 72.5 億美元集體訴訟協議。雖然預計此決定將導致數千件「未能警告」的索賠被撤銷，但它並不排除基於產品設計的訴訟。該裁決的影響可能延伸至其他農業化學品，例如先正達 (Syngenta) 的百草快 (paraquat)，目前亦有類似的健康相關訴訟在審理中。

The ruling effectively shields Bayer from a vast majority of state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits, though the company continues to pursue a multi-billion dollar settlement for remaining claims.

該裁決實際上保護了拜耳，使其免於面對絕大多數州級別的「未能警告」訴訟，儘管該公司仍將為剩餘索賠追求數十億美元的和解。