美国最高法院审理拜耳公司针对农达诉讼的抗辩


2026-04-27 10:06:11 UTC / 路透社

作者:安德鲁·钟
2026年4月27日 美国东部时间上午10:06 更新于1小时前

节点运行失败

2017年6月26日在美国加利福尼亚州恩西尼塔斯展示待售的孟山都公司农达产品。路透社/迈克·布雷克/档案照片 购买授权,打开新标签页

  • 摘要
  • 企业

  • 消费者因认为农达致癌而提起诉讼
  • 拜耳称州法索赔应由联邦法律优先管辖

华盛顿,4月27日(路透社)——美国最高法院将于周一审理拜耳集团申请驳回数千起诉讼的诉求,这些诉讼指控该公司未就其农达除草剂的活性成分会致癌一事向用户发出警告。

大法官们将就拜耳的上诉进行庭审,该上诉针对密苏里州一家州法院作出的裁决,法院判决向名为约翰·达内尔的男子赔偿125万美元,该男子称其在多年接触农达中的草甘膦后被诊断出非霍奇金淋巴瘤。

开启您的晨间资讯:将最新法律新闻直接发送至您的收件箱,来自《每日案卷》新闻简报。点击此处订阅。

广告 · 滚动继续阅读

拜耳辩称,一项管控农药的联邦法律应当阻止以州法为依据提出的未警告类索赔,比如达内尔的这类诉讼,不得进入法庭审理程序。这家德国制药与作物科学公司表示,美国环境保护署已多次认定草甘膦不会致癌,并在批准其产品标签时未要求添加致癌警告。

据该公司称,已有超过10万名原告在美国州法院和联邦法院提起诉讼,指控农达与癌症存在关联。拜耳曾表示,最高法院若作出有利于该公司的裁决,应能基本终结农达相关诉讼。

广告 · 滚动继续阅读

多个作物种植和农业行业团体与共和党籍总统唐纳德·特朗普政府一同支持拜耳。而多个环保、农场工人和公共卫生团体则提交了法庭文件支持达内尔。

拜耳于2018年以630亿美元收购农化公司孟山都,从而获得了农达品牌。这场铺天盖地的诉讼促使拜耳将其消费者版农达中的草甘膦移除,该公司还表示,这些诉讼可能威胁到其向农民供应除草剂的能力。

面对可能高达数十亿美元的赔偿责任,拜耳于2月宣布了一项拟议的72.5亿美元和解方案,以解决数万起当前和未来的诉讼。据该公司称,该和解方案不会影响尚未审结的上诉案件或不在和解范围内的索赔,后者金额接近10亿美元。

这场广泛的争议围绕美国一项名为《联邦杀虫剂、杀菌剂和杀鼠剂法》(FIFRA)的法律展开,该法律管控农药的销售和标签,并禁止各州施加不同或额外的要求。

该法规明确禁止标签“贴错标”的农药,即标签缺乏足以保护健康和环境的适当警告。

拜耳辩称,达内尔的索赔应受FIFRA法律优先管辖。该公司称,环保署多次批准了不含此类致癌警告的标签,这表明这些产品并未贴错标,并补充称,未经该机构批准,标签不得进行实质性修改。

达内尔的律师表示,尽管环保署已批准农达的标签,但该标签仍可能因贴错标而受到质疑。他们还称,达内尔的索赔不应被优先管辖,因为密苏里州法律要求产品对危险提供充分警告,这与FIFRA关于禁止贴错标的要求是一致的。

达内尔于2019年在密苏里州法院起诉孟山都,称其未就农达和草甘膦相关的危险向用户发出警告。

他被诊断出患有一种罕见且通常具有侵袭性的非霍奇金淋巴瘤,这是一种始于白细胞的癌症,并将该疾病归咎于自1996年以来接触农达。根据法庭文件,在大约20年的时间里,他担任圣路易斯一个社区协会的“除草专员”,在当地公园除草时未佩戴防护装备。

2023年,陪审团作出有利于达内尔的裁决,2025年,州上诉法院维持了该判决。

最高法院的裁决预计将于6月底前公布。

路透社/益普索上周发布的一项民调凸显了特朗普政府支持拜耳的风险。在受访者中,63%的人表示,即使公司已对风险发出警告,他们也反对保护因销售致癌产品而面临诉讼的企业。

安德鲁·钟报道;戴安娜·诺瓦克·琼斯、利亚·道格拉斯和杰森·兰奇补充报道;威尔·邓纳姆编辑

我们的准则:路透社信托原则。

US Supreme Court hears Bayer’s fight against Roundup lawsuits

2026-04-27 10:06:11 UTC / Reuters

By Andrew Chung

April 27, 2026 10:06 AM UTC Updated 1 hour ago

节点运行失败

Monsanto Co’s Roundup is shown for sale in Encinitas, California, U.S., June 26, 2017. REUTERS/Mike Blake/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

  • Summary
  • Companies
  • Consumers sue over cancer they attribute to Roundup
  • Bayer says state law claims preempted by federal law

WASHINGTON, April 27 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court is set on Monday to consider Bayer AG’s effort to shut down thousands of lawsuits accusing the company of failing to warn users that the active ingredient in its ​Roundup weedkiller causes cancer.

The justices are due to hear arguments in Bayer’s appeal of a jury verdict in Missouri state court awarding $1.25 million ‌to a man named John Durnell who said he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of exposure to glyphosate in Roundup.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Bayer contends that a federal law governing pesticides should prevent failure-to-warn claims like Durnell’s that are brought under state law from moving forward in court. The German drugmaking and crop science company said that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly ​found that glyphosate does not cause cancer and approved its product labels without a warning.

More than 100,000 plaintiffs have filed cases in U.S. state ​and federal courts alleging a cancer link, according to the company. It has said a Supreme Court ruling in its ⁠favor should largely bring the Roundup litigation to an end.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

A number of crop farming and agricultural industry groups are backing Bayer in the case, as is ​Republican President Donald Trump’s administration. Several environmental, farm worker and public health groups have filed court papers backing Durnell.

Bayer acquired Roundup as part of its $63 billion purchase of ​agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018. The torrent of litigation prompted Bayer to remove glyphosate from its consumer version of Roundup, and the company said that the lawsuits could threaten its ability to supply the herbicide to farmers.

Facing billions of dollars in potential liability, Bayer announced in February a proposed $7.25 billion settlement to resolve tens of thousands of current and future lawsuits. The settlement would ​not affect claims that stem from pending appeals or that fall outside the deal, according to the company. Those amount to nearly $1 billion, it said.

The sprawling ​dispute centers on a U.S. law called the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, that governs the sale and labeling of pesticides and bars states from imposing differing ‌or additional ⁠requirements.

The regulation notably prohibits pesticides that are “misbranded” with labels that lack an adequate warning to protect health and the environment.

Bayer has argued that Durnell’s claims are preempted by FIFRA. The EPA has repeatedly approved labels without such a cancer warning, demonstrating that these products are not misbranded, the company said, adding that labels cannot be substantially changed without the agency’s approval.

Durnell’s lawyers said that despite the EPA’s registration of Roundup, the label may still be challenged as misbranded. They also said Durnell’s ​claims are not preempted because Missouri state ​law that requires products to adequately ⁠warn of dangers imposes the same requirements as FIFRA’s prohibition on misbranding.

Durnell sued Monsanto in Missouri state court in 2019, claiming it failed to warn users of the dangers associated with Roundup and glyphosate.

He was diagnosed with a rare and ​often aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer that starts in the white blood cells, and attributed the disease ​to his exposure to ⁠Roundup starting in 1996. For about 20 years he was the “spray guy” for a neighborhood association in St. Louis, killing weeds at local parks without protective equipment, according to court papers.

A jury sided with Durnell in 2023, and in 2025 a state appeals court upheld that verdict.

A Supreme Court ruling is expected by the end of June.

A ⁠Reuters/Ipsos poll ​released last week highlighted the Trump administration’s risks in backing Bayer. In it, 63% of poll ​respondents said they oppose protecting companies from lawsuits when they sell cancer-causing products, even if the company warns about the risk.

Reporting by Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by Diana Novak Jones, Leah Douglas and Jason Lange; Editing by Will Dunham

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

评论

发表回复

您的邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注