Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, has petitioned the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to review a $177.3 million judgment from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in the case of Ernest Caranci v. Monsanto. This marks the first Roundup case tried in that court, with Monsanto arguing that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts Pennsylvania’s state-law failure-to-warn claims. These claims allege that Monsanto failed to include a cancer warning on Roundup’s label, linking the herbicide’s active ingredient, glyphosate, to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Background
The case stems from plaintiff Ernest Caranci, who claimed his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was caused by Roundup exposure. A Pennsylvania jury awarded him $175 million in 2023, upheld by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in 2025. The Superior Court ruled that Pennsylvania’s stricter failure-to-warn statute survives FIFRA preemption, as it mirrors but does not supplant federal labeling requirements under FIFRA’s misbranding provisions. This decision contrasts with the Third Circuit’s ruling in Schaffner v. Monsanto (August 15, 2024), which held that FIFRA preempts similar Pennsylvania claims because the EPA-approved Roundup label, lacking a cancer warning, sets a federal standard that state law cannot override.
Monsanto’s Preemption Argument
Monsanto’s defense hinges on FIFRA’s uniformity provision, which prohibits states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” federal standards (7 U.S.C. § 136v(b)). The company argues that since the EPA approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning, Pennsylvania’s requirement for such a warning conflicts with federal law. Monsanto points to the Third Circuit’s Schaffner decision, which emphasized FIFRA’s Preapproval Regulation (40 C.F.R. § 152.44), requiring labels to conform to EPA approval. The Third Circuit ruled that state failure-to-warn claims are preempted because they impose different requirements than the EPA-approved label.
Counterarguments
Plaintiffs, including Caranci, argue that Pennsylvania’s failure-to-warn law aligns with FIFRA’s misbranding provision, which prohibits labels lacking warnings “necessary to protect health” (7 U.S.C. § 136(q)). They contend that a state-law duty to warn about cancer risks is equivalent to federal misbranding standards, as a label omitting such a warning could mislead consumers. The Pennsylvania Superior Court in Caranci distinguished its ruling from Schaffner, stating that FIFRA preempts only direct conflicts with federal law, not state laws that parallel federal requirements.
Circuit Split and Supreme Court Implications
The Caranci ruling conflicts with the Third Circuit’s Schaffner decision and aligns more closely with the Ninth Circuit (Hardeman v. Monsanto, 2021) and Eleventh Circuit (Carson v. Monsanto, 2022), which rejected FIFRA preemption for similar state-law claims. This circuit split increases the likelihood of U.S. Supreme Court review, as Monsanto has also petitioned in Monsanto v. Durnell (a Missouri case) to resolve whether FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision could further clarify this issue or escalate it to the U.S. Supreme Court, impacting over 150,000 Roundup lawsuits nationwide.
Current Status
As of August 18, 2025, Monsanto’s petition is pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The court’s decision could either reinforce the Superior Court’s ruling, allowing Pennsylvania claims to proceed, or align with the Third Circuit, bolstering Monsanto’s preemption defense. If the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upholds the verdict, Monsanto is likely to seek U.S. Supreme Court review, given the high stakes for Bayer, which faces billions in potential liability.
Sources
- Monsanto Takes Roundup Preemption Defense to Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Benzinga, August 15, 2025
- Pennsylvania Panel Upholds $175 M Roundup Verdict Against Monsanto, Blue Sky Legal
- Schaffner v. Monsanto Corporation, No. 22-3075 (3d Cir. 2024), Justia
- Preempting Toxic Torts: Third Circuit Opens Split on Cancer Warnings, Harvard Law Review, November 18, 2024
- Third Circuit Roundup Ruling Splits with Ninth and Eleventh, Duane Morris, September 4, 2024