Farmers Step In as Monsanto Pushes for Immunity at the Supreme Court
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
Farmers Step In as Monsanto Pushes for Immunity at the Supreme CourtThe case will decide whether farmers can still take action when they’re harmed.
Today, farmers stepped into a Supreme Court fight against Monsanto. Farm Action joined a coalition of farmer and farmworker groups, represented by FarmSTAND, in filing an amicus brief opposing Monsanto’s attempt to escape liability in Monsanto v. Durnell, which will be argued before the Supreme Court on April 27. Monsanto is asking the Court to block people from suing when its products cause harm, arguing that federal pesticide approvals should override state law. Farmers are saying no. This case is being framed as protecting agriculture, but it doesn’t. It strips farmers and farmworkers of one of the only tools they have left to hold powerful corporations accountable. If Monsanto gets what it wants, a company could fail to warn about known risks and still avoid responsibility. The rest of us would be left facing the consequences. The Story Monsanto Is TellingMonsanto and its allies want the public to believe this case is about protecting farmers’ access to an important tool, but that argument falls apart fast. The question before the Court is whether Monsanto can avoid responsibility when its product causes harm. Farmers’ ability to control weeds is not what is on trial here. Our brief makes that clear. Holding Monsanto accountable would not threaten farmers’ ability to grow food. Farmers can access glyphosate from other manufacturers. They can use other herbicides. They can also control weeds without herbicides at all. The Pressure CampaignBayer, which owns Monsanto, has been telling policymakers and the public that holding the company accountable would put the food system at risk. The company has threatened to pull Roundup from the market, hoping that fear of disruption will do political work for them. But Roundup is a major source of revenue for Bayer, and glyphosate would still be available from other manufacturers even if Bayer changed course. The point of these threats is not to warn about a real supply crisis. Instead, it is to build pressure for legal protection by making policymakers afraid to challenge the company. What’s at StakeMonsanto wants federal approval to serve as a shield against failure-to-warn claims under state law. If the Court agrees, people harmed by these products could lose one of the last remaining ways to seek justice. Farmers and farmworkers would still bear the risk, but the company that made the product could be let off the hook. And the impact would not end with Monsanto. A ruling like that would give pesticide companies a much stronger path to avoid accountability when their products cause harm. The Bigger PictureThis case is part of a broader pattern in agriculture. Over time, the seed and chemical industries have consolidated, leaving a handful of corporations with control over inputs farmers rely on. Seeds, chemicals, and contracts are tied together in ways that limit farmers’ choices and deepen their dependence on the companies selling them. Giving those companies legal immunity would only tighten that grip. It would mean less accountability in a system where corporate control is already too high. Where This Leaves UsThis case gets to a basic question: Can a company sell a product, fail to warn people about known risks, and then avoid responsibility when harm follows? Farmers are stepping in because they know exactly what that means. They are the ones using these products. They are the ones exposed to the risks. And too often, they are the ones left without any real recourse when something goes wrong. No company should get a pass for that, and farmers are making that clear at the Supreme Court. Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Angela Huffman is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Angela Huffman that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won’t be charged unless they enable payments. |
![]()
