\n<\/p>\n
WASHINGTON — <\/span>The Supreme Court seemed divided Monday over whether to block thousands of lawsuits alleging the maker of the weedkiller Roundup failed to warn people it could cause cancer. <\/p>\n The case came before the justices after a tidal wave of litigation that included some multibillion-dollar verdicts against the global agrochemical manufacturer Bayer, which owns Roundup maker Monsanto. <\/p>\n Several justices seemed sympathetic to the company\u2019s argument that it can\u2019t be sued under state law because federal regulators have found Roundup likely doesn\u2019t cause cancer. Others, though, grilled attorneys about whether that wrongly stops states from responding to changing research. <\/p>\n Roundup maker Monsanto is backed by the Trump administration, a legal position that’s at odds with some allies in the Make America Healthy Again movement<\/a> who want to rein in pesticide use.<\/p>\n On the other side is a Missouri man named John Durnell. His lawsuit said he developed a cancer called non-Hodgkin\u2019s lymphoma after more than 20 years of serving as the neighborhood association\u2019s \u201cspray guy,\u201d using Roundup on parks in his historic St. Louis community. <\/p>\n A jury agreed that the company failed to warn him about possible cancer dangers and awarded him $1.25 million. It’s one of thousands of similar cases, including some multibillion-dollar<\/a> damage awards. <\/p>\n There’s still fierce debate about cancer and Roundup\u2019s key ingredient, glyphosate. The World Health Organization\u2019s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as \u201cprobably carcinogenic” in 2015, but the Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it’s not likely to be carcinogenic<\/a> to humans when used as directed.<\/p>\n The agency approved a label without a cancer warning, and Bayer argues that it’s required to follow those federal standards \u2014 not the state laws that Durnell and others have sued under. <\/p>\n Durnell’s lawyers, on the other hand, say that federal law doesn’t stop Bayer from putting a fuller warning on its products under state law. <\/p>\n Bayer disputes the cancer claims but has set aside $16 billion to settle cases, and proposed a major settlement<\/a> earlier this year. At the same time, it has tried to persuade states to pass laws barring new cases, and a few have agreed<\/a>. <\/p>\n The company has faced more than 100,000 Roundup claims, mostly from home users. It has stopped using glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market. The company has said it might have to consider pulling glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if the lawsuits persist.<\/p>\n Farmers with the Modern Ag Alliance, a group founded by Bayer, said they’re worried that could hurt the agricultural industry at time when it’s already under pressure. <\/p>\n Environmental groups say Bayer wants to keep juries out of the lawsuits because of its state court losses.<\/p>\n Pesticides have created a rift between the administration and members of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s MAHA movement, who were also frustrated with an executive order aimed at boosting glyphosate\u2019s production.<\/p>\n Kennedy himself has said repeatedly that glyphosate causes cancer, even as he says he recognizes the executive order was necessary for food supply and national security reasons.<\/p>\n Dozens of MAHA activists and supporters on Monday gathered outside the Supreme Court for what they called a \u201cPeople vs. Poison\u201d rally to decry Monsanto\u2019s efforts to shield itself from lawsuits.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case by the end of June.<\/p>\n __ <\/p>\n Associated Press writer Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n