3 ms·
Title is misleading. The case is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Co._v._Durnell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Co._v._Durnell, and Wikipedia's su
by gruez 4mo ago
Title is misleading. The case is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Co._v._Durnell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Co._v._Durnell, and Wikipedia's summary is:
>The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Actpreempts a state-law labeling requirement that differs from the federal labeling requirements imposed under FIFRA.
In other words, they don't have immunity from cancer lawsuits. They have immunity from cancer lawsuits stemming from being noncompliant with state labeling laws.
- withinboredom 4mo agoThe best kind of correct.
- cherry_tree 4mo ago> In a 7-2 decision issued in June 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bayer and Mosanto, ruling that the Montana state law cannot coerce the labeling of Roundup as containing carcinogens since federal regulators have not identified a connection. The ruling overturned a prior jury award and is expected to end most other ongoing litigation over Roundup. Another anti-states right ruling that will be championed by the states rights crowd. As long as it’s in corporate interests, states have no rights.