Good analysis of SCOTUS bad decision on glyphosate and more, by Robert Malone

Everyone is reading the Supreme Court’s Roundup decision as a fight about glyphosate. Much of MAHA called it a betrayal.
The more I studied the opinion, the more I concluded it is not really about glyphosate at all.

The justices did not weigh epidemiology. They did not rule on whether glyphosate causes cancer. They did not pick IARC or EPA as the better science.
They answered a narrow legal question with enormous consequences. 

The question: when EPA approves a pesticide label under FIFRA, can a state jury later decide the manufacturer should have warned more strongly?
The Court’s answer was largely no. EPA-approved labels now preempt most state failure-to-warn claims. 

Why does that reach beyond Roundup?
State failure-to-warn lawsuits have been one of the few mechanisms that surface emerging risk. Tobacco. Asbestos. Lead paint. PFAS. Discovery forced disclosure. Experts testified under oath. Regulators defended their conclusions in open court. 

That pathway just narrowed dramatically.
When an EPA label preempts the claim, EPA becomes the gatekeeper for deciding when evolving science justifies a new warning. That authority no longer rests with juries hearing new evidence. It rests with one federal agency. 

So here is the real question, and it is a constitutional one:
Can Congress create a system in which a single federal agency becomes the exclusive gatekeeper for whether evolving scientific evidence ever reaches an American jury? 

This is hard to square with two decisions constitutional conservatives celebrated.
Dobbs returned power to the states. Loper Bright said courts, not agencies, interpret statutes.
Here, an agency’s determination became the basis for closing the courthouse door. 

Note who stood where. The Biden administration did not embrace the broad preemption argument. The Trump administration did.
Ironically, the Biden position sat closer to conservative legal principles: preserve juries, respect state common law, do not expand the administrative state. 

The decision assumes EPA will revisit labels as science evolves. Look at the record.
Glyphosate entered review in 2009. EPA reaffirmed “not likely carcinogenic” in 2020. The Ninth Circuit faulted that analysis. EPA withdrew it. More than fifteen years in, still no final determination. 

Meanwhile the science moved past cancer.
Researchers are now studying endocrine disruption, the gut microbiome, metabolic disease, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neuroinflammation, and cumulative exposure to many chemicals at once.
The questions themselves have changed. 

Freeze the courts to EPA’s pace and you freeze more than yesterday’s conclusions. You freeze yesterday’s understanding of which questions even deserve investigation.
That is a dangerous place for science and for public health. 

One more point. If EPA’s science now forecloses jury claims, EPA’s independence is no longer just a regulatory issue. It is a civil-justice issue.
The FDA has faced years of scrutiny over capture and the revolving door. EPA has largely escaped it. This decision should end that. 

This case is not really about glyphosate. It is about who decides when science has changed, and whether Americans keep access to the courts when new evidence emerges.

link

In a nutshell, the court’s decision puts all power to regulate (more than just) glyphosate in one agency — the EPA. This obviously risks the EPA becoming yet another captured agency. ABN