Monsanto's Roundup at the Supreme Court

The Brian Lehrer Show examines the Supreme Court's oral arguments in a landmark case involving Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, centered on John Durnell, a landscaper diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of exposure. The case hinges not on whether glyphosate causes cancer—where the World Health Organization classifies it as a probable carcinogen and the EPA deems it not likely carcinogenic—but on whether state-level lawsuits can proceed despite federal pesticide regulation. The episode explores the deep scientific and political divide, highlighting how the EPA’s 2016 review failed to follow its own guidelines, prioritizing dietary exposure over occupational risk and pure glyphosate over formulated herbicides with potentially harmful inert ingredients. The Trump administration’s Justice Department argued on Monsanto’s behalf, contradicting RFK Jr.’s earlier stance and disappointing Maha movement activists who helped elect Trump. Experts Leanne Shepard and Maureen Grappi unpack the scientific evidence linking glyphosate to blood cancers, particularly non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and the public health implications of widespread exposure through diet and occupational use. Despite the lack of a clear signal from the justices during oral arguments, the episode underscores the broader stakes: if the Court rules in Monsanto’s favor, it could block tens of thousands of lawsuits and set a precedent limiting state-level accountability in public health matters.