2026-06-25T14:33:52.217Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：约翰·弗里茨、萨拉·奥沃莫勒
27分钟前发布
发布于2026年6月25日美国东部时间上午10:33
这张2019年的照片展示了旧金山某商店货架上的农达除草剂容器。
哈文·戴利/美联社
美国最高法院周四驳回了一名密苏里州男子的诉求，该男子声称除草剂农达导致其患癌。最高法院支持该产品制造商的论点，称由于联邦政府未要求在标签上标注癌症警告，本应驳回该诉讼。
大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺撰写了7比2的多数意见。大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊和尼尔·戈萨奇持反对意见。
此案原告为约翰·达内尔，他在圣路易斯社区因在家中周边公园使用农达除草剂而被称为“喷洒男子”。数年后，达内尔被诊断出患有非霍奇金淋巴瘤，随后起诉孟山都公司，称接触该农药是致病原因。陪审团判给其125万美元赔偿。
但该判决可能对数千起针对该公司的除草剂相关其他诉讼产生影响。此次判决涉及的议题也日益激励了唐纳德·特朗普总统“让美国再次健康”的支持者。今年4月初案件口头辩论时，数百名呼吁加强农药监管的民众聚集在最高法院，人数远超今年大多数上诉案件的旁听者。
在加入特朗普政府之前，卫生与公众服务部部长小罗伯特·F·肯尼迪是反对农药的主要倡导者之一。肯尼迪曾是德韦恩·“李”·约翰逊的法律团队成员，这名旧金山学校场地管理员于2014年被诊断出患有晚期非霍奇金淋巴瘤，他多年来一直在负责维护的场地喷洒农达。
达内尔的胜诉依据是孟山都未提供癌症警告，并将该产品宣传为无需防护即可安全使用。孟山都则坚称农达的活性成分草甘膦不会致癌。该公司还表示，一项赋予美国环境保护署广泛监管除草剂权力的联邦法律优先于州级法律诉求。美国环保署从未要求在该产品标签上标注癌症警告。
达内尔是超过10万名因农达起诉孟山都的人士之一。这场诉讼部分源于2015年国际癌症研究机构的一项裁定，将草甘膦归类为“可能对人类致癌”的物质。
孟山都于2018年被拜耳收购。
孟山都的律师援引了1972年出台的《联邦杀虫剂、杀菌剂和杀鼠剂法》，该法律为除草剂制定了广泛的审批和标签监管规定。该公司辩称，这项法律的全部意义在于阻止各州对农药实施参差不齐的标签要求。
该公司已将消费级产品中的草甘膦移除，但草甘膦仍是农民广泛使用的工业级产品的核心成分。
包括美国商会在内的商业团体警告称，如果最高法院支持达内尔，将使其他受类似联邦监管要求约束的行业面临诉讼风险，这可能涉及医疗设备、化妆品、泳池产品甚至受至少部分联邦标签法规约束的宠物食品。
尽管肯尼迪此前在该议题上倡导改革，但特朗普政府曾敦促最高法院受理此案，并支持孟山都的论点，警告下级法院支持达内尔的判决将导致监管标准“各州各自为政，乱象丛生”。密苏里州上诉法院维持了对达内尔有利的判决，孟山都于去年向美国最高法院提起上诉，此前该州最高法院拒绝审查这一判决。
Supreme Court tosses $1.25 million verdict for man who says Roundup caused his cancer
2026-06-25T14:33:52.217Z / CNN
By John Fritze, Sarah Owermohle
27 min ago
PUBLISHED Jun 25, 2026, 10:33 AM ET
This 2019 photo shows containers of Roundup on a store shelf in San Francisco.
Haven Daley/AP
The Supreme Court on Thursday sided against a Missouri man who claimed that the herbicide Roundup caused his cancer, backing an argument from the product’s manufacturer that the lawsuit should have been barred because the federal government does not require a cancer warning on the label.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for a 7-2 court. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
The lawsuit at issue was filed by John Durnell, who became known as “spray man” in his St. Louis neighborhood for using Roundup in the parks around his home. Years later, after Durnell was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, he sued Monsanto, claiming his exposure to the pesticide was to blame. A jury awarded him $1.25 million.
But the decision could have implications for thousands of other lawsuits that have been filed against the company over its weedkiller. And it comes on an issue that has increasingly motivated President Donald Trump’s “Make America Healthy Again” supporters. Hundreds of people who support tighter regulations on pesticides turned out at the Supreme Court in early April when the case was argued, a far more significant crowd than most of this year’s appeals have drawn.
Before he joined the Trump administration, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was a leading advocate against pesticides. Kennedy was part of the legal team that represented DeWayne “Lee” Johnson, a San Francisco school groundskeeper who was diagnosed in 2014 with terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma. For years he had sprayed Roundup around the grounds he maintained.
Durnell’s win rested on the idea that Monsanto failed to provide a cancer warning and marketed the product as safe to use without protection. Monsanto has maintained that the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, does not cause cancer. And the company said that a federal law that gives wide authority to the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate weedkillers preempted the state law claims. The EPA has never required cancer warnings on the product’s labeling.
Durnell is one of more than 100,000 people who have sued Monsanto over Roundup. That litigation was sparked in part by a 2015 finding from the International Agency for Research on Cancer that classified glyphosate as an agent that is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
Monsanto was purchased in 2018 by Bayer.
Monsanto’s lawyers focused on a 1972 law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which sets out extensive approval and label regulations for herbicides. The whole point of that law, the company argued, was to bar individual states from imposing a patchwork of labeling requirements on pesticides.
The company has removed glyphosate from the consumer version of its product. But glyphosate remains the central ingredient in industrial versions widely used by farmers.
Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, warned that if the Supreme Court sided with Durnell, it would open other industries that are subject to similar federal requirements to lawsuits. That potentially includes medical devices, cosmetics, pool products and even pet food subject to at least some federal labeling regulations.
Despite Kennedy’s previous advocacy on the issue, the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to take up the case and it supported Monsanto’s argument, warning that the lower courts’ decisions in Durnell’s favor would lead to a “state-by-state cacophony” of regulations. A Missouri appeals court upheld the Durnell verdict and Monsanto appealed to the US Supreme Court last year after the state’s highest court declined to review that decision.
发表回复