Geoff Bennett:
The U.S. Supreme Court today heard arguments in a case that could reshape the yearslong legal fight over Roundup, the world’s most widely used weed killer. It’s been a mainstay of industrial agriculture in the U.S. and around the globe, but thousands of lawsuits allege that one of its key ingredients may be linked to cancer.
Our justice correspondent, Ali Rogin, has more on the debate before the court.
Ali Rogin:
For many years, researchers have debated if exposure to glyphosate, the herbicide and key ingredient in Roundup, causes cancer. That debate has led to tens of thousands of lawsuits against Bayer, the company that makes Roundup, claiming it failed to warn consumers about potential health risks.
Bayer argues federal pesticide laws shield them and that the EPA has never declared their product contains cancer-causing ingredients. Today’s arguments unfolded against a backdrop of political tensions over pesticides, both within the Trump administration and the broader Make America Healthy Again movement.
To help us understand the potential real-world implications of whatever the court decides, we’re joined by Helena Bottemiller Evich, founder of the Food Fix newsletter, who has been tracking the policy implications of this debate.
Helena, thanks so much, and welcome back to the “News Hour.”
Helena Bottemiller Evich, Food Fix:
Thanks for having me.
Ali Rogin:
So, tell us, why do farmers and other folks in the agriculture business — why is Roundup so widely used?
Helena Bottemiller Evich:
Yes, so it is the most widely used weed killer or herbicide in the U.S., and we particularly use it to raise crops like corn and soy and cotton.
And it is a really good way to handle weeds. It is efficient, and, for decades, farmers were really marketed to that this was so much less toxic than other options. And so it is commonly used. It’s also used in gardens and landscapes, around schools. It is just very, very common in the U.S.
Ali Rogin:
What does this case boil down to in the Supreme Court?
Helena Bottemiller Evich:
So, really, at the heart of this is whether or not EPA has the final say on pesticides.
There’s tens of thousands of cases where farmers and other occupational users of glyphosate have brought these cases. They’re arguing basically that the company didn’t warn them of the potential risk of increase of cancer. And so that’s the issue.
It’s either preemption or states’ rights, and we will see what they decide.
Ali Rogin:
And while the justices weigh these regulatory questions, what do we know about the stated health risks and the unknowns of using Roundup?
Helena Bottemiller Evich:
Yes, so EPA has long maintained, has maintained for decades that glyphosate is not likely to be a human carcinogen. But not everyone agrees with that assessment.
So, back in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, they determined — that’s a WHO panel — they determined that it is likely to be a human carcinogen. There’s other places, like in the E.U., where they allow glyphosate, but they have much stricter controls on how it is used.
There is a really intense scientific debate about the extent to which glyphosate might be increasing cancer risk, particularly non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. There is more evidence around the occupational uses, so think farmworkers, farmers, groundskeepers.
But a lot of the MAHA moms that you’re hearing from right now are really concerned about the low-level residues found in food. EPA maintains that these are below the levels that they would be concerned about, but there’s a lot of worry, I think, of consumers about what the long-term implications of having these residues in our food supply might mean.
Ali Rogin:
Helena, earlier this year, President Trump issued an executive order which would boost domestic production of glyphosate, kind of going in the complete opposite direction of the MAHA movement and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy.
What is the political debate here and is it driving a wedge between the Trump administration and the MAHA movement?
Helena Bottemiller Evich:
It has ripped open major tensions within this MAHA and MAGA coalition.
So, basically, when then-candidate Kennedy dropped out of the presidential race and endorsed Trump, we have created this MAHA-MAGA-like marriage. And that marriage has been under strain as the Trump administration, as you mentioned, continues to back Bayer, the German chemical company that bought Monsanto, which was the maker of Roundup.
Bayer has been supported by the Trump administration at every turn through an executive order. The Trump administration is actually before the Supreme Court arguing on behalf of Bayer as well. And so MAHA is furious about this. They feel that it is a betrayal of what Kennedy and Trump argued for on the campaign trail.
Ali Rogin:
You were at the rally in front of the Supreme Court today with MAHA supporters. They called it the People vs. Poison. What are your takeaways?
Helena Bottemiller Evich:
There was a lot of energy there. There were definitely not as many people as they had anticipated. I think they were expecting 1,000 people or more. There were not that many people. There were a lot of reporters.
But there was a lot of energy. The moms I talked to there were really excited to protest. A lot of them had never been to a Supreme Court rally before. And it was bipartisan.
When you look at the polling on these issues, like more regulations of pesticides, it is broadly supported across Republicans, Democrats, and independents. So…
Ali Rogin:
Helena, we don’t know how this is going to end up. But if Roundup is forced to accept these warning labels alleging warning of cancer, are there alternative products out there? What else is available to people who use these products?
Helena Bottemiller Evich:
Yes, one of the big concerns is that whatever replaces Roundup or glyphosate might be more toxic. So that is a big concern in the agriculture community to look at potential replacements.
We don’t really have a natural replacement for glyphosate at this point. It is such a major part of the U.S. agricultural system. There is some technology coming down the pike with lasers zapping weeds, and, like, there’s some other things that are coming down. But those are very expensive. Those are years away.
And I think it’s going to be a while before those are really viable technologies. Bayer has really expressed concern that if this liability — if they continue to face billions in liability in the U.S., that they might have to pull glyphosate from the market. The Trump administration has argued that would be catastrophic.
Not everyone agrees with that assessment, but it would be extremely disruptive.
Ali Rogin:
Helena Bottemiller Evich, founder of Food Fix, thank you so much.
Helena Bottemiller Evich:
Thank you.
