Bayer seeks US Supreme Court clarity in glyphosate dispute

Bayer said it is hoping for clarity from the US Supreme Court in its multi-billion-dollar glyphosate litigation, as the court weighs questions regarding federal versus state authority in product warning labels.

In a statement on the hearing, the German pharmaceutical and chemical group said it appreciated the Supreme Court's review of the issue of regulatory uniformity and whether federal law prevents states from requiring different label warnings.

Bayer has argued that state-level requirements for warning labels that differ from those approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency are pre-empted by federal law.

The company said any other outcome would create a patchwork of warning requirements, adding that firms should not be held liable under individual state laws for complying with federal regulations.

Comments from the justices during the hearing suggested differing views.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated there may be a need for uniformity in such warnings, while Chief Justice John Roberts questioned if states should be allowed to flag emerging risks, noting they may respond to new safety data faster than federal agencies.

Bayer is seeking a favourable ruling in the Durnell case, which it hopes could help bring long-running litigation to a close. It said a decision in its favour would provide regulatory clarity needed to bring approved and new agricultural products to US farmers and consumers.

The Supreme Court must decide whether federal law governing pesticide labelling pre-empts state law, as Bayer argues.

The case stems from a lower court ruling in St Louis in October 2023, where a jury found the company should have provided a cancer warning and awarded substantial damages to the plaintiff, John Durnell.

Bayer later selected the case for appeal in an effort to obtain a definitive ruling from the top US court.