2026年4月1日 / 美国东部时间下午2:00 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿——民主党参议员科里·布克周三向美国最高法院提交了一份法律意见书，支持癌症患者。这起事关重大的案件将决定数千起针对除草剂农达的诉讼能否继续推进，并与特朗普政府的立场形成直接对立。
这份被称为“法庭之友意见书”的文件支持一名原告，该原告指控孟山都未就农达与癌症风险的关联向消费者发出警告。农达是全球使用最广泛的除草剂之一。
这起名为“孟山都公司诉约翰·L·达内尔”的案件，核心争议点在于联邦农药标签相关法律是否优先于州级索赔——即该公司未就潜在健康风险向使用者作出充分警告的州级主张。
如果最高法院支持孟山都，可能会大幅限制或驳回众多原告提起的诉讼，这些原告称长期接触农达的活性成分草甘膦导致他们患上了非霍奇金淋巴瘤，一种血癌。如果法院作出不利于孟山都的裁决，这些案件将可以继续在州法院推进。
孟山都的母公司拜耳已支付逾100亿美元，了结此前与农达相关的索赔，目前正寻求一项72.5亿美元的拟议和解方案，以处理额外的案件。
孟山都否认草甘膦活性成分与癌症存在关联，称数百项研究已证实草甘膦是安全的。
布克在意见书中指出，孟山都正在寻求“广泛的联邦责任豁免”，而该公司“一再未能从民选议员手中获得此类豁免”，并警告法院不要介入议员们已辩论但尚未解决的议题。
他还表示，联邦农药法——即《联邦杀虫剂、杀菌剂和杀鼠剂法案》——的初衷是设定最低安全标准，而非阻止州级诉讼。
布克认为，这些诉讼是追究公司责任的关键机制，尤其是随着科学界对潜在风险的认知随时间演变之际。
布克还在国会推动过相关议题。近年来，他提出了多项旨在强化农药制造商责任的法案，其中一项法案允许因农药受到伤害的人在联邦法院提起诉讼，另一项法案则针对某些有害化学物质的使用。这两项法案都将修改最高法院此次案件所涉及的同一部联邦法律。
这起案件还牵扯到特朗普政府。美国司法部也提交了支持孟山都的意见书，辩称联邦法律应优先于州级的未充分警告索赔，因为联邦监管机构已批准了该产品的标签。
孟山都在给哥伦比亚广播公司新闻的一份声明中表示，联邦法律旨在为农药标签创建“统一的全国性框架”，并辩称允许诉讼继续推进将导致各州标准出现冲突。
“国家粮食供应的安全与可负担性，取决于农民和制造商能否信赖联邦监管机构基于科学作出的判断。最高法院的澄清对于恢复统一性、确定性和法治至关重要。”孟山都说道。
与此同时，特朗普总统已采取措施推动国内草甘膦生产，称其对国家安全和美国粮食供应至关重要，尽管围绕其安全性的诉讼仍在持续。
布克也批评了政府的相关做法。今年2月，他谴责了一项要求联邦机构增加草甘膦生产的行政命令——草甘膦是农达的关键成分，而针对其潜在健康风险的诉讼仍在进行中。
农达的关键成分草甘膦一直是长期科学争论的焦点。世界卫生组织将其列为“可能致癌物”，而美国环境保护署则称，按说明书使用时，草甘膦不太可能致癌。
这种分歧引发了多年的诉讼，包括陪审团认定孟山都未就潜在风险向使用者作出充分警告的案件。在担任卫生与公众服务部部长之前，小罗伯特·F·肯尼迪曾在2018年的一起针对孟山都的诉讼中成功代理一名癌症晚期患者，陪审团最终判给原告2.89亿美元赔偿。
最高法院定于4月27日听取口头辩论，预计在本届任期内作出裁决，该裁决将影响农达诉讼的未来走向，并决定数千起索赔能否继续推进。
Booker urges Supreme Court to allow Roundup cancer lawsuits to proceed
April 1, 2026 / 2:00 PM EDT / CBS News
Washington — Democratic Sen. Cory Booker filed a legal brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday backing cancer patients in a high-stakes case that could determine whether thousands of lawsuits over the weedkiller Roundup can proceed — and drawing a direct contrast with the Trump administration’s position.
The filing, known as an amicus brief, supports a plaintiff who alleges Monsanto failed to warn consumers about cancer risks tied to Roundup, one of the most widely used herbicides in the world.
The case — Monsanto Company v. John L. Durnell — centers on whether federal law governing pesticide labeling overrides state-level claims that the company did not adequately warn users about potential health risks.
If the court sides with Monsanto, it could significantly limit or block many of the lawsuits brought by people who say long-term exposure to Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. A ruling against the company would allow those cases to continue moving through state courts.
Bayer, Monsanto’s parent company, has paid more than $10 billion to resolve earlier Roundup-related claims and is now pursuing a proposed $7.25 billion settlement to address additional cases.
Monsanto has denied a link between the active ingredient in glyphosate and cancer, saying hundreds of studies have established that glyphosate is safe.
In his brief, Booker argued Monsanto is seeking a “broad federal shield from liability” that it has “repeatedly failed to obtain from elected representatives,” warning the court against stepping in on an issue lawmakers have debated but not resolved.
He also said federal pesticide law, known as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, was designed to set minimum safety standards, not to block state-level lawsuits.
Booker argued those lawsuits serve as a critical mechanism for holding companies accountable, particularly as scientific understanding of potential risks evolves over time.
Booker has also pushed the issue in Congress. In recent years, he has introduced legislation aimed at strengthening accountability for pesticide manufacturers, including a bill that would allow people harmed by pesticides to sue in federal court and another targeting the use of certain harmful chemicals. Both efforts would amend the same federal law at the center of the Supreme Court case.
The case has also drawn in the Trump administration. The Justice Department filed its own brief backing Monsanto, arguing that federal law should preempt state-level failure-to-warn claims because federal regulators have already approved the product’s labeling.
In a statement to CBS News, Monsanto said federal law was designed to create a “uniform, nationwide framework” for pesticide labeling and argued that allowing lawsuits to proceed would create conflicting state standards.
“The security and affordability of the nation’s food supply depend on farmers’ and manufacturers’ ability to rely on the science-based judgments of federal regulators. Clarification from the Court is essential to restore uniformity, certainty, and the rule of law,” Monsanto said.
At the same time, President Trump has moved to boost domestic production of glyphosate, calling it critical to national security and the U.S. food supply, even as litigation over its safety continues.
Booker has also criticized the administration’s approach. In February, he condemned an executive order directing federal agencies to boost production of glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, as lawsuits over its potential health risks continue.
Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate, has been at the center of a long-running scientific debate. The World Health Organization has classified it as a probable carcinogen, while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says it is not likely to cause cancer when used as directed.
That divide has fueled years of lawsuits, including cases where juries found Monsanto failed to adequately warn users about potential risks. Before serving as Health and Human Services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. successfully represented a man dying of cancer in a 2018 lawsuit against Monsanto in which the jury awarded $289 million to the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments April 27, with a decision expected later this term that could shape the future of Roundup litigation and determine whether thousands of claims can move forward.
