WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that federal labeling requirements can override state failure-to-warn claims on pesticide safety, potentially ending billions in liability claims in state courts against Monsanto over its Roundup herbicide.

Bayer, which acquired Monsanto several years ago, said lawyers are still analyzing the ruling but added the decision is, “good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation,” in a statement posted to the company’s website.  

“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.”

The company said Monsanto will continue to pursue final approval of a class settlement and other elements of its, “multi-pronged strategy to contain the Roundup litigation. The Supreme Court’s decision provides much-needed clarity on the role of federal, science-based regulation and reaffirms the value of sound science in the regulatory process.”

Thursday’s news is a major boost for most stakeholders in farm production — especially no-tillers who rely on glyphosate products to terminate cover crops and manage glyphosate-tolerant crops so they can avoid tillage to control weeds. 

The American Soybean Assn. hailed the ruling, saying farmers, “depend on clear, consistent labeling and a uniform regulatory framework to use pesticides safely and responsibly.

Earlier this year, ASA joined 11 other agricultural organizations in an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court defending farmer access to crop protection tools against continued threats of, “regulatory overreach and activist litigation.

"For decades, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, along with regulatory authorities around the world, has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk when used as directed. State-level requirements have led to a burdensome regulatory patchwork that conflicts with EPA-approved labels and creates confusion, undermining confidence in the regulatory process and limiting access to essential crop protection tools.”