2026年6月25日 / 美国东部时间上午11:23 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿讯 美国最高法院周四裁定，孟山都公司无需因未在除草剂农达的标签上标注所谓的致癌风险而根据州法律承担责任。
在“孟山都公司诉杜内尔”一案中，最高法院以7比2的投票结果认定，一部规范农药产品销售和标签的联邦法律，禁止州法院受理针对孟山都未在农达标签上添加癌症警告的诉讼。
美国环境保护署已认定农达使用安全，且无需在其标签上标注癌症警告。最高法院在周四的判决书中表示，联邦法律要求孟山都使用经环保署批准的标签，除非环保署批准或要求使用不同的标签。
该判决由最高法院大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺撰写，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨以及大法官塞缪尔·阿利托、索尼娅·索托马约尔、埃琳娜·卡根、艾米·科尼·巴雷特和克拉伦斯·托马斯加入了多数意见。大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊和尼尔·戈萨奇持不同意见。
近年来，孟山都因农达产品面临大量诉讼。预计周四的这一判决将驳回数千名消费者提起的诉讼，这些消费者声称孟山都未告知他们该产品可能致癌。
德国制药公司拜耳于2018年收购孟山都，从而获得了农达业务。
“美国最高法院的判决对科学、农民以及依赖监管清晰度进行创新的行业而言是好事，”拜耳在发给哥伦比亚广播公司新闻的一份声明中表示，“在近十年的法律斗争之后，这一判决应能显著遏制农达相关诉讼。”
拜耳补充称，其将继续争取该公司在2月份提出的72.5亿美元集体和解方案的最终批准，以“解决农达相关诉讼”。该和解方案将解决与农达使用相关的当前及未来索赔，目前正由密苏里州一家法院审理。如果该方案获得批准，孟山都将在长达21年的时间里按年度支付款项。
最高法院案件的核心争议点
此案由来自密苏里州的园丁约翰·杜内尔于2019年提起，他是全美范围内起诉孟山都的10万多人之一，这些人都声称农达的关键成分草甘膦导致他们患上了癌症。杜内尔称，他接触农达超过20年，最终患上了非霍奇金淋巴瘤——一种血癌。
杜内尔的律师未立即回复置评请求。
此次争议的核心是一部名为《联邦杀虫剂、杀菌剂和杀鼠剂法》（简称FIFRA）的联邦法律，该法律由美国国会于1947年颁布。该法律规范农药的使用和销售，并为化学品标签设定统一框架，同时要求农药制造商在产品销售前向环保署进行登记。
几十年来，环保署一直在评估草甘膦类农药是否会对人类健康造成不利影响，包括致癌风险，并已认定农达使用安全。因此，该除草剂的标签上并未标注癌症警告。
拜耳曾辩称，《联邦杀虫剂、杀菌剂和杀鼠剂法》的规定禁止其单方面更改标签上的“预防警告”，添加癌症警告。
尽管环保署认定，按照说明使用农达是安全的，但隶属于世界卫生组织的国际癌症研究机构的一个工作组在2015年将草甘膦归类为“可能对人类致癌”。
在国际癌症研究机构作出上述分类后，环保署对草甘膦的致癌潜力进行了自行审查，并找到了最有力的证据，将该化学物质归类为“不太可能对人类致癌”。基于其分析结果，环保署在2019年和2020年得出结论，认为无需为草甘膦添加癌症警告，并持续批准不包含癌症警告的草甘膦类农药产品标签。
尽管如此，国际癌症研究机构的分类还是引发了大量诉讼，众多原告声称他们使用农达导致了癌症，并要求孟山都因未告知所谓的致癌风险而承担责任。
杜内尔就是这些原告之一，他于2019年在密苏里州法院起诉孟山都。
2023年，陪审团驳回了杜内尔除一项之外的所有诉求——即孟山都未告知消费者农达所谓的致癌风险，并判其获得125万美元的损害赔偿。拜耳表示，该公司已不再销售草甘膦类农达产品，但仍通过家得宝和劳氏等零售商提供其他版本的除草剂。
密苏里州上诉法院驳回了孟山都提出的《联邦杀虫剂、杀菌剂和杀鼠剂法》优先于杜内尔诉讼的主张，该州最高法院也拒绝审查这一判决。
特朗普政府的法律胜利
这一判决是特朗普政府的一场胜利，但在政治上可能颇具争议，因为“让美国再次健康”运动中的盟友希望限制农药的使用。
特朗普政府在本案中支持孟山都，在一份文件中写道，联邦法律赋予环保署确定是否需要农药警告以保护人类健康和环境的责任。美国司法部辩称，环保署在认定农达标签充分保护使用者健康之前，已经审查了大量证据并进行了自行分析。
另外，特朗普总统在2月份签署了一项行政命令，旨在提高草甘膦类除草剂的产量，他警告称，无法获得该物质会威胁农业生产力，给国内粮食系统带来压力。
美联社对本报道亦有贡献。
Supreme Court sides with Monsanto in case over cancer risks from weedkiller Roundup
June 25, 2026 / 11:23 AM EDT / CBS News
Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that Monsanto cannot be held liable under state laws for failing to warn consumers about the alleged cancer risks of its weedkiller Roundup on its label.
In a 7-2 decision in the case Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the high court found that a federal law regulating the sale and labeling of pesticide products bars lawsuits in state courts alleging that Monsanto failed to include a cancer warning on Roundup’s labels.
The Environmental Protection Agency has deemed Roundup safe to use and does not require a cancer warning on its label. In its opinion Thursday, the Supreme Court said federal law requires Monsanto to use an EPA-approved label unless the EPA approves or requires a different label.
The decision was delivered by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was joined in the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
Monsanto has faced a tidal wave of litigation in recent years over its Roundup product. Thursday’s ruling is expected to block thousands of lawsuits from consumers who claimed Monsanto failed to warn them that the product could cause cancer.
Bayer, a German pharmaceutical company, acquired Roundup when it bought Monsanto in 2018.
“The U.S. Supreme Court decision is good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation,” Bayer said in a statement shared with CBS News. “It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles.”
Bayer added that it will continue to seek final approval of a $7.25 billion class settlement it proposed in February to “contain the Roundup litigation.” The proposed settlement, which would resolve current and future claims related to Roundup’s use, is now before a Missouri state court. If the plan gets a green light, Monsanto would make annual payments for up to 21 years.
Question at the center of the Supreme Court case
The case before the Supreme Court was brought in 2019 by John Durnell, a gardener from Missouri who is one of more than 100,000 people across the country who have sued Monsanto and alleged that the key ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, caused them to develop cancer. Durnell said he had been exposed to Roundup for more than 20 years, leading him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a type of blood cancer.
Durnell’s lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
At the center of the dispute is a federal law called the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, which was enacted by Congress in 1947. The law regulates the use and sale of pesticides and sets a uniform framework for labeling of the chemicals. It also requires pesticide manufacturers to register their products with the EPA before they can be sold.
The EPA has, for decades, evaluated whether glyphosate-based pesticides pose adverse health risks to humans, including cancer risks, and has deemed Roundup safe to use. As a result, the herbicide’s label does not include a cancer warning.
Bayer had argued that FIFRA’s rules prohibited it from unilaterally changing its label’s “precautionary warnings” to include a cancer warning.
While the EPA has determined that Roundup is safe when used as directed, a working group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015.
Following IARC’s determinations, the EPA conducted its own examinations of glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential and found the “strongest support” for classifying the chemical as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Based on its analyses, the EPA in 2019 and 2020 concluded that a cancer warning for glyphosate was not needed, and it has continued to approve labels of glyphosate-based pesticide products that do not contain cancer warnings.
Still, the classification from IARC sparked a slew of lawsuits from scores of plaintiffs who alleged that their use of Roundup caused their cancers and sought to hold Monsanto liable for failing to warn about the alleged carcinogenic risk.
Among those plaintiffs was Durnell, who sued Monsanto in Missouri state court in 2019.
A jury rejected all but one of Durnell’s claims — that Monsanto failed to warn consumers about Roundup’s alleged cancer risk — and awarded him $1.25 million in damages in 2023. Bayer says it no longer sells glyphosate-based Roundup products, but does offer other versions of the herbicide through retailers such as Home Depot and Lowe’s.
The Missouri Court of Appeals went on to reject Monsanto’s arguments that FIFRA preempted Durnell’s lawsuit, and the state’s supreme court declined to review the decision.
A legal victory for Trump administration
The decision is a victory for the Trump administration, but one that could be tricky politically since allies in the Make America Healthy Again movement want to rein in pesticide use.
The Trump administration backed Monsanto in the case, writing in a filing that federal law gives the EPA the responsibility to determine whether pesticide warnings are needed to protect human health and the environment. The Justice Department argued the EPA had reviewed extensive evidence and conducted its own analysis before determining Roundup’s labeling adequately protected users’ health.
Separately, President Trump signed an executive order in February that aimed to boost the production of glyphosate-based herbicides, warning that the lack of access to the substance threatened agricultural productivity, putting pressure on the domestic food system.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.