2026-06-25T14:07:38.875Z / reuters.com
华盛顿6月25日路透电——美国最高法院限制了各州法院受理的数千起诉讼，这些诉讼指控拜耳公司未就其农达除草剂的活性成分会致癌一事向使用者发出警告，周四这家德国公司赢得了一场重大法律胜利。
大法官们以7票对2票的表决结果，推翻了密苏里州陪审团作出的一项裁决：该裁决要求向一名名叫约翰·德内尔的男子支付125万美元赔偿，德内尔称自己因多年接触农达中的草甘膦而被诊断出患有非霍奇金淋巴瘤。最高法院支持拜耳的观点，即一项规范农药的联邦法律排除了依据州法律提出的未警告索赔在法庭上继续推进的可能。
判决公布后，拜耳股价上涨近18%。
唐纳德·特朗普总统的政府在本案中支持拜耳。
撰写该判决意见的保守派大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺表示，美国环境保护署（EPA）已认定草甘膦不会致癌，且未要求农达附带癌症警告标识。
卡瓦诺写道，该联邦法律优先于德内尔的索赔诉求，因为“这将要求孟山都在农达标签上添加癌症警告，而联邦法律要求孟山都使用经EPA批准的、不带癌症警告的标签”。
自由派大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊在一份异议意见中称，德内尔的诉求并不会要求孟山都添加联邦法律未要求的标签内容，因此不应被排除适用，保守派大法官尼尔·戈萨奇加入了该异议。
杰克逊称该判决“非同寻常且令人遗憾，因为它毫无道理地将德内尔这类州侵权诉讼原告挡在了法院门外”。
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。目前已有超过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，这家德国制药和作物科学公司曾警告称，此类诉讼可能威胁其向农民供应除草剂的能力。
这场大规模诉讼已经促使拜耳将消费者版农达中的草甘膦成分移除。拜耳在最高法院判决前曾表示，若法院作出有利于己方的裁决，将可基本终结农达相关诉讼。
“美国最高法院的判决对科学、农民以及依赖监管清晰度开展创新的行业都有利。在历经近十年的法律纠纷后，这一判决将有助于显著遏制农达相关诉讼。该判决将导致当前基于未警告提出的索赔被驳回，并禁止未来提出此类未警告索赔，”公司发言人蒂诺·安德烈森在一份声明中说道。
该公司在整个诉讼过程中始终强调，EPA多次认定草甘膦不会致癌，并批准了不带癌症警告的产品标签。
面对可能高达数十亿美元的赔偿责任，拜耳于今年2月提出了一项72.5亿美元的和解方案，以解决数万起当前及未来的诉讼。该公司表示，和解方案不会影响正在上诉的索赔或不属于该协议范围的索赔，并称此类索赔金额接近10亿美元。
“公共健康的灾难”
环保活动人士及其他人士批评了周四的法院判决。
倡导组织“食品与水观察”的法律主任塔拉·海因岑表示：“最高法院再次站在了大企业而非民众和环境的一边。今天的判决是公共健康的灾难。”
倡导组织“美国复兴”的联合执行主任凯利·赖尔森同时也是“让美国再次健康”活动人士，她在社交媒体上以“草甘膦女孩”的账号发帖。她表示：“这一判决造成的危害将使我们世代延续的癌症、不孕症和普通慢性病疫情持续下去。”
这场广泛争议的核心是一项名为《联邦杀虫剂、杀菌剂和杀鼠剂法》（FIFRA）的美国法律，该法律规范农药的销售和标签使用，并禁止各州提出不同或额外的要求。
该法律禁止标签“贴错标”的农药上市，此类标签缺乏保护健康和环境的充分警告。
拜耳辩称，德内尔的索赔诉求被该法律优先适用。该公司表示，EPA多次批准不带此类癌症警告的标签，证明这些产品并未贴错标，同时补充称，未经该机构批准，标签不得进行实质性修改。
德内尔的律师表示，即便EPA批准了农达的登记，其标签仍可能因贴错标而受到挑战。他们还称，德内尔的诉求并未被排除适用，因为密苏里州法律要求产品充分警告潜在危险，这与FIFRA关于禁止贴错标的要求是一致的。
“新纪元”
联合投资基金经理马库斯·曼斯称周四的判决对拜耳来说是一个重要里程碑，并补充道，在收购孟山都十年后，该公司正“迈入新纪元”。
“虽然未来的诉讼并未完全绝迹，但它们将变得困难得多。如果原告接受和解方案并于7月获得主管法院批准，这将是最终的突破。这将为拜耳的草甘膦诉讼画上明确的句号，使管理层能够完全重新聚焦于运营和战略事务，”曼斯说道。
德内尔于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危险向使用者发出警告。
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——一种始于白细胞的癌症，并将该病归咎于自己从1996年开始接触农达。根据法庭文件，在大约20年的时间里，他是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，陪审团作出有利于德内尔的裁决，2025年州上诉法院维持了该判决。
一些支持特朗普政府卫生部长小罗伯特·F·肯尼迪的“让美国再次健康”运动活动人士批评了特朗普政府对拜耳的支持。包括一些作物种植和农业行业团体在内的诸多组织也支持拜耳，而多个环保、农场工人和公共卫生团体则支持德内尔。
最高法院于今年4月就该案听取了口头辩论。
安德鲁·钟报道；帕特里夏·魏斯补充报道；威尔·邓汉姆编辑
US Supreme Court scales back Roundup cancer lawsuits
2026-06-25T14:07:38.875Z / reuters.com
WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court reined in thousands of lawsuits pursued in state courts accusing Bayer
of failing to warn users that the active ingredient in its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer, handing a major legal victory on Thursday to the German company.
The justices in a 7-2 decision overturned a jury verdict in Missouri 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. The Supreme Court agreed with Bayer that a U.S. law that governs pesticides precludes failure-to-warn claims that are brought under state law from moving forward in court.
Bayer shares jumped nearly 18% following the ruling.
President Donald Trump’s administration backed Bayer in the case.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the ruling, said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, has concluded glyphosate does not cause cancer and has not required a cancer warning on Roundup.
The law preempts Durnell’s claim because it “would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label even though federal law requires Monsanto to use the EPA-approved label without a cancer warning,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent joined by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, said that Durnell’s claim would impose equivalent labeling requirements on Monsanto that the federal law requires and so should not be preempted.
Jackson called the ruling “remarkable and regrettable, for it unjustifiably closes the courthouse doors to state tort plaintiffs like Durnell.”
Bayer acquired Roundup as part of its $63 billion purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018. More than 100,000 plaintiffs have filed cases in U.S. state and federal courts alleging a cancer link, and the German drugmaking and crop science company had said that the lawsuits could threaten its ability to supply the herbicide to farmers.
The torrent of litigation already prompted Bayer to remove glyphosate from its consumer version of Roundup. Bayer said before the Supreme Court ruled that a decision in its favor could largely end the Roundup litigation.
“The U.S. Supreme Court decision is good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation. It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles. The ruling should result in the dismissal of current warning-based claims and bar future failure-to-warn claims,” company spokesperson Tino Andresen said in a statement.
The company emphasized throughout the litigation that the EPA repeatedly found that glyphosate does not cause cancer and approved its product labels without a warning.
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.
‘ A DISASTER FOR PUBLIC HEALTH’
Environmental activists and others criticized the court’s ruling on Thursday.
“Once again, the Supreme Court has sided with big business over people and the environment. Today’s ruling is a disaster for public health,” said Tarah Heinzen, legal director at the advocacy group Food and Water Watch.
“The harm from this decision will perpetuate our cancer, infertility and general chronic disease epidemic for generations to come,” said Kelly Ryerson, co-executive director of advocacy group American Regeneration and a Make America Healthy Again activist who posts on social media under the moniker “The Glyphosate Girl.”
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 measure 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 this law. 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.
‘ A NEW ERA’
Union Investment fund manager Markus Manns called Thursday’s ruling a significant milestone for Bayer, adding that a decade after the Monsanto acquisition, the company is “entering a new era.”
“While future lawsuits are not entirely off the table, they will become considerably more difficult. A final breakthrough would come if the settlement is accepted by the plaintiffs and approved by the competent court in July. This would bring Bayer’s glyphosate litigation chapter to a definitive close, allowing management to fully refocus on operational and strategic matters,” Manns said.
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.
Some activists with the “Make America Healthy Again” movement that backs Trump’s Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr have criticized the Trump administration’s support for Bayer. Also backing Bayer in the case were a number of crop farming and agricultural industry groups. Several environmental, farm worker and public health groups backed Durnell.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in April.
Reporting by Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by Patricia Weiss; Editing by Will Dunham
