I completely disagree with this "the sky is falling" reaction to the Monsanto decision. The case determined only that the state law failure to warn basis for liability is preempted by the federal regulatory warnings rules. Nothing else was at issue and injured parties remain free to make their claims for negligence or for selling a product that was not reasonably safe.
Warning labels are a dubious basis for liability in any event: created by lawyers for lawyers. No farm worker reads the warnings on a barrel of Roundup.
The larger issue the author misses is whether we should support or oppose granting to an administrative agency the fiat power to decide what we are allowed to put in our bodies and under what conditions. I would have thought it far more prudent to be very wary of that power.
Robert, Good points but the Supreme Court is really just interpreting the law as written by Congress. Congress is the body that built a framework where Federal preemption can be claimed and the Court just affirmed that. Leaving the 10th Amendment behind (should ANY of this be Federal?) Congress could easily say that such claims are not subject to Federal preemption and that would be the end of that. Blaming the Court which everyone seems to be doing now misses the point. A one line law would fix this -- but we know that it is 100% follow the money for all politicians and the chance of them fixing this, because of the money trail, is near zero. But a concerted effort to do so at the Congressional level would be the only way to fix the incipient horrendioma you describe.
Mr. Malone, Don't Plaintiff's still have the right to Tort damages, for actually being damaged by Glyphosate, rather than for suing for damages because they were not warned that Glyphosate could cause damages? I don't see that being addressed in this analysis, or in the Court decision. Thanks for discussing this, it was a perplexing decision.
One of the basic rules followed and embraced by Republicans is "Buyer Beware". Basically it states that “Buyer Beware” is a warning that you, as the customer, is responsible for checking what you’re buying—so don’t assume the seller is being fair, honest, or giving you complete information. It often means: read the fine print (terms, fees, warranties, cancellation rules)
verify claims (especially about quality, safety, guarantees) recognize that laws and consumer protections may not cover every situation, so you should protect yourself in advance. (Pro-business stand)
In today's complex business world managed by lawyers, the buyer is at a distinct disadvantage and it is never more true in how the chemical industry publishes extensive rules of use for the chemicals they sell. EPA is the gate keeper that Ok's what they produce. Shifting the responsibility to the buyer. Essentially saying we know what we sell is toxic, but it is up to you the buyer to use it safely.
My Grandsons (twins) when they were 3 years old were exposed to glyphosates being sprayed with an agricultural sprayer in a park in a 40 mile an hour wind. The overspray killed the Gingo tree next to their sand box and one of the twins exhibited neurological damage for weeks.
My view was to sue the Park District for using it in a unsafe manner, but my daughter didn't want to do it. They were at fault, but suing Monsanto would have failed. They reversed Biden policy because Republicans embrace and endorse Buyer Beware policy which is pro business.
Today unless you are a lawyer that can read the double speak, you as the average consumer is at the mercy of the system and at a great disadvantage. Cumulative effect of trace toxins in the human body is not being addressed. Chemical industry is a driver of the medical industry. Both deny that they have any role in fixing the system and are not responsible for great harm created.
High priced lawyers keep the status quo in place. Keeps both industries highly profitable, and Bayer knew that they would prevail when they bought Monsanto.
Do not know if still, but Germany once had a very strict purity law for their beer...absolutely no additives. Seems Congress could handcuff e.p.a. by passing food purity laws making exposure to glyphosphate taboo. Seems one issue here is money trumping health issues. The gov is going to protect big companies from big monetary loses so maybe these big dollar lawsuits need to be restructured so only legal fees covered and health issues moved to the,front of the bus
On the one hand there is the difficulty of “ equalizing” interstate commerce, on the other, “ Congress assumed…” how the agency would enforce its law— that is the real underlying issue. As science evolves, so must Congressional law become ever more specific about how agencies are to act— here Congress could revise the registration process to every five years and provide a mechanism for “on demand” reviews, which is what has basically been happening in court cases.
Note this article informs about three items - glyphosate, aluminum and pineal gland injury - caused by the gut dysbiosis. The microbiome being at the heart of neurotoxic excesses.
Look at it all together. - Good article Drs MALONE!
I am so glad to have discovered dragons blood. The angiogenesis alone is nearly instantaneous healing of the entire endocrine system - and nervous healing.
This is a very carefully dissected review, worthy of a skilled lawyer. The bottom line is not looking so pretty. The chances of the EPA staying current with the changing science of health is unlikely. The public outcry for available litigation just got a whole lot quieter. Sucked down the drain of legal mumbo-jumbo.
After the Wuhan Red Death debacle, how can we TRUST that a federal government agency will know what it's doing and give we the taxpayers absolutely correct information? And keep us safe?
The EPA's "experts" might very well have their own personal profit motives in mind.
So once again the Courts have abridged and violated the tenets of the 10th Amendment.
"When EPA approves a pesticide label under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, can state courts later conclude that the manufacturer should have included stronger warnings?
The Court’s answer was largely no."
Every State should pass legislation which negates the Federal pesticide label; and legislate the requirements for their State. How will the Federals defend an unConstitutional EPA against the authority of the States?
Good summary. If the EPA has ultimate responsibility to keep abreast of science concerning potentially toxic substances, doesn’t it all come down to Bill Belichick’s mantra,” Do your job”?
A query to Chat reveals: In addition to Causation and damages, one of the following is needed to establish negligence and responsibility for the Defendant to pay:
Design defect- means the product was unreasonably dangerous as designed, even if made exactly as intended.
Manufacturing defect- means this unit departed from the intended design—for example, contamination, wrong concentration, impurity, defective batch.
Negligent application- means the product may be lawful, but someone used it carelessly or contrary to directions.
Breach of warranty- means the seller made an enforceable representation about the product that was untrue.
Fraud or misrepresentation- means the plaintiff relied on false or concealed information.
Violation of pesticide-use rules can supply the wrongful act, sometimes as negligence per se or evidence of negligence.
Without one of those theories, the manufacturer’s argument is: “The product was lawful, EPA-approved, sold with the federally approved label, and it performed as pesticides inherently do. Harm alone does not make us liable.”
Note: Bayer HAS PAID roughly $11 billion to settle nearly 100,000 US Roundup lawsuits,
In Feb 2026, Bayer was preparing to pay US class action suits $4.2 billion
Supreme Court Justice "Thomas has faced repeated calls to stay out of Monsanto cases but has routinely helped issue rulings in favor of the company and other chemical-industry litigants."
I completely disagree with this "the sky is falling" reaction to the Monsanto decision. The case determined only that the state law failure to warn basis for liability is preempted by the federal regulatory warnings rules. Nothing else was at issue and injured parties remain free to make their claims for negligence or for selling a product that was not reasonably safe.
Warning labels are a dubious basis for liability in any event: created by lawyers for lawyers. No farm worker reads the warnings on a barrel of Roundup.
The larger issue the author misses is whether we should support or oppose granting to an administrative agency the fiat power to decide what we are allowed to put in our bodies and under what conditions. I would have thought it far more prudent to be very wary of that power.
Robert, Good points but the Supreme Court is really just interpreting the law as written by Congress. Congress is the body that built a framework where Federal preemption can be claimed and the Court just affirmed that. Leaving the 10th Amendment behind (should ANY of this be Federal?) Congress could easily say that such claims are not subject to Federal preemption and that would be the end of that. Blaming the Court which everyone seems to be doing now misses the point. A one line law would fix this -- but we know that it is 100% follow the money for all politicians and the chance of them fixing this, because of the money trail, is near zero. But a concerted effort to do so at the Congressional level would be the only way to fix the incipient horrendioma you describe.
Interesting take.....but it was a court of law and a legal appeal. It was about a label...or lack thereof....and not science.
Mr. Malone, Don't Plaintiff's still have the right to Tort damages, for actually being damaged by Glyphosate, rather than for suing for damages because they were not warned that Glyphosate could cause damages? I don't see that being addressed in this analysis, or in the Court decision. Thanks for discussing this, it was a perplexing decision.
One of the basic rules followed and embraced by Republicans is "Buyer Beware". Basically it states that “Buyer Beware” is a warning that you, as the customer, is responsible for checking what you’re buying—so don’t assume the seller is being fair, honest, or giving you complete information. It often means: read the fine print (terms, fees, warranties, cancellation rules)
verify claims (especially about quality, safety, guarantees) recognize that laws and consumer protections may not cover every situation, so you should protect yourself in advance. (Pro-business stand)
In today's complex business world managed by lawyers, the buyer is at a distinct disadvantage and it is never more true in how the chemical industry publishes extensive rules of use for the chemicals they sell. EPA is the gate keeper that Ok's what they produce. Shifting the responsibility to the buyer. Essentially saying we know what we sell is toxic, but it is up to you the buyer to use it safely.
My Grandsons (twins) when they were 3 years old were exposed to glyphosates being sprayed with an agricultural sprayer in a park in a 40 mile an hour wind. The overspray killed the Gingo tree next to their sand box and one of the twins exhibited neurological damage for weeks.
My view was to sue the Park District for using it in a unsafe manner, but my daughter didn't want to do it. They were at fault, but suing Monsanto would have failed. They reversed Biden policy because Republicans embrace and endorse Buyer Beware policy which is pro business.
Today unless you are a lawyer that can read the double speak, you as the average consumer is at the mercy of the system and at a great disadvantage. Cumulative effect of trace toxins in the human body is not being addressed. Chemical industry is a driver of the medical industry. Both deny that they have any role in fixing the system and are not responsible for great harm created.
High priced lawyers keep the status quo in place. Keeps both industries highly profitable, and Bayer knew that they would prevail when they bought Monsanto.
Do not know if still, but Germany once had a very strict purity law for their beer...absolutely no additives. Seems Congress could handcuff e.p.a. by passing food purity laws making exposure to glyphosphate taboo. Seems one issue here is money trumping health issues. The gov is going to protect big companies from big monetary loses so maybe these big dollar lawsuits need to be restructured so only legal fees covered and health issues moved to the,front of the bus
On the one hand there is the difficulty of “ equalizing” interstate commerce, on the other, “ Congress assumed…” how the agency would enforce its law— that is the real underlying issue. As science evolves, so must Congressional law become ever more specific about how agencies are to act— here Congress could revise the registration process to every five years and provide a mechanism for “on demand” reviews, which is what has basically been happening in court cases.
Being a Parkinson's widower, I will not look at glyphosate as an isolated poison:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HApvy02Hu2cHJfyYtSrLyp8eJ4TWTatO
Note this article informs about three items - glyphosate, aluminum and pineal gland injury - caused by the gut dysbiosis. The microbiome being at the heart of neurotoxic excesses.
Look at it all together. - Good article Drs MALONE!
I am so glad to have discovered dragons blood. The angiogenesis alone is nearly instantaneous healing of the entire endocrine system - and nervous healing.
This is a very carefully dissected review, worthy of a skilled lawyer. The bottom line is not looking so pretty. The chances of the EPA staying current with the changing science of health is unlikely. The public outcry for available litigation just got a whole lot quieter. Sucked down the drain of legal mumbo-jumbo.
After the Wuhan Red Death debacle, how can we TRUST that a federal government agency will know what it's doing and give we the taxpayers absolutely correct information? And keep us safe?
The EPA's "experts" might very well have their own personal profit motives in mind.
So once again the Courts have abridged and violated the tenets of the 10th Amendment.
"When EPA approves a pesticide label under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, can state courts later conclude that the manufacturer should have included stronger warnings?
The Court’s answer was largely no."
Every State should pass legislation which negates the Federal pesticide label; and legislate the requirements for their State. How will the Federals defend an unConstitutional EPA against the authority of the States?
"How will the Federals defend an unConstitutional EPA against the authority of the States?"
I believe it's called the Insurrection Act.
Doctor, how many of those scientific studies, on either side, have been replicated independently? I see lots of studies in general that can't be.
Like...who paid for the study?
Good summary. If the EPA has ultimate responsibility to keep abreast of science concerning potentially toxic substances, doesn’t it all come down to Bill Belichick’s mantra,” Do your job”?
CDC FDA NIH cant even do THEIR jobs! END TENURE !
A query to Chat reveals: In addition to Causation and damages, one of the following is needed to establish negligence and responsibility for the Defendant to pay:
Design defect- means the product was unreasonably dangerous as designed, even if made exactly as intended.
Manufacturing defect- means this unit departed from the intended design—for example, contamination, wrong concentration, impurity, defective batch.
Negligent application- means the product may be lawful, but someone used it carelessly or contrary to directions.
Breach of warranty- means the seller made an enforceable representation about the product that was untrue.
Fraud or misrepresentation- means the plaintiff relied on false or concealed information.
Violation of pesticide-use rules can supply the wrongful act, sometimes as negligence per se or evidence of negligence.
Without one of those theories, the manufacturer’s argument is: “The product was lawful, EPA-approved, sold with the federally approved label, and it performed as pesticides inherently do. Harm alone does not make us liable.”
Perhaps EPA should retract their label approval.
Perhaps Congress should dissolve EPA and revoke its rulings.
Note: Bayer HAS PAID roughly $11 billion to settle nearly 100,000 US Roundup lawsuits,
In Feb 2026, Bayer was preparing to pay US class action suits $4.2 billion
Supreme Court Justice "Thomas has faced repeated calls to stay out of Monsanto cases but has routinely helped issue rulings in favor of the company and other chemical-industry litigants."
https://vitamindwiki.com/pages/investigation-on-roundup-glyphosate-at-vitamindwiki/
hmm, Dr. Malone has called C. Thomas a friend. Maybe not so much anymore?