The American Tort Reform Association, joined by leading scientific organizations and a coalition of civil justice reform advocates, today filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a Missouri court’s decision in a case based on made-for-litigation science.
Federal law explicitly bars states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” those the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approves. The case, Monsanto v. Durnell, raises the question of whether state courts can override the EPA’s findings with that of the International Agency for Research on Cancer and plaintiff-retained expert witnesses in numerous individual trials.
“Junk science is a scourge on our judicial system, and today, we’re calling on our nation’s highest court to address this ill,” said Lauren Sheets Jarrell, vice president and counsel for civil justice policy at ATRA.
ATRA’s amicus brief highlights decades of EPA research affirming that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weedkiller Roundup, does not pose a cancer risk when used as directed. IARC, however, labeled glyphosate “probably carcinogenic” — an outlier classification based on hazard identification alone which conflicts the EPA’s real-world exposure and dose-response data.
IARC’s methods have been criticized by the scientific community as flawed and outdated, but the group’s findings nevertheless became the foundation for thousands of lawsuits targeting Roundup and sparked mass tort advertising campaigns, illustrating how science can be weaponized in litigation.
“SCOTUS has an opportunity to make it clear that state courts cannot substitute federal scientists’ regulatory determinations with made-for-litigation theories from the trial bar’s hired guns,” Sheets Jarrell said.
IARC’s approach has been noted to sometimes lack “scientific rigour” while also failing to address potential conflicts of interests. For example, Dr. Christopher Portier contributed to IARC’s glyphosate assessment as an “invited specialist.” He reportedly received at least $160,000 from lawyers who claim glyphosate exposure causes cancer along with consulting fees from the Environmental Defense Fund, an organization opposed to glyphosate. Following Portier’s involvement, the glyphosate study was altered in at least ten significant ways to remove or reverse conclusions finding no evidence of carcinogenicity.
The coalition filing the brief includes the Center for Truth in Science, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, and the International Society for Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, along with legal reform groups in California, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania.
“Missouri courts, specifically in St. Louis, long have been ranked among the nation’s top ‘Judicial Hellholes®’ due to their lax attitudes toward questionable expert testimony,” Jarrell said. “This case demonstrates exactly why judges must fulfill their roles as gatekeepers and follow the standards for expert evidence laid out in Rule 702 to keep junk science out of our courts.”
Expert Commentary from the Scientific Community
“Regulatory science operates on evidence of risk, not speculation about hazard,” said Dr. Michael Dourson, president of Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment and a board-certified toxicologist. “When courts elevate hazard-based opinions over robust risk assessments, they undermine decades of scientific progress in protecting human health. The EPA’s evaluation process looks at dose, exposure, and real-world safety — that’s the science the public can trust.”
The groups emphasized in their brief that allowing juries to impose requirements based on disproven theories will expose the nation’s agricultural sector, including farmers, manufacturers, and retailers to unpredictable liability risk, raise food prices for consumers, and jeopardize the food supply worldwide.
“At a time when affordability is top of mind for American families, we can’t afford to allow trial lawyers to continue peddling junk science theories like this in our courts,” Sheets Jarrell said. “On average, U.S. families are paying $5,579 every year in a hidden ‘tort tax’ due to excessive litigation. It’s up to SCOTUS to rein in junk science and stop allowing the plaintiffs’ bar to dilute the truth in our nation’s courts. When greedy billboard lawyers weaponize science and scare consumers through flashy ad campaigns, we all pay.”
ATRA’s recent report, “The Junk Science Playbook,” reveals in detail how made-for-litigation research increasingly is used to manipulate both public policy and courtroom outcomes, from vaccines and Tylenol to climate litigation.
The amicus brief in its entirety is available at ATRA.org.
