SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
pesticides
Citing Child Cancer Risk, Lawsuit Targets Trump EPA Over Glyphosate
"The EPA's silence leaves families in the dark and falls far short of its responsibility to protect public health," said the Environmental Working Group's president.
Apr 21, 2026
Just days before the US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments related to glyphosate's health risks, the Environmental Working Group on Tuesday sued the Trump administration for unlawfully delaying its response to an EWG petition seeking stronger restrictions on "the most widely used herbicide in the United States and globally."
The filing at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit calls out the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to act on evidence that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, "is exposing infants and young children to harmful levels through everyday foods."
EWG and its co-petitioners filed a formal administrative petition under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 2018, during President Donald Trump's first term, and amended it the following year. They want the EPA to revoke or modify the glyphosate policy for oats, so it's stricter, and restrict its use as a pre-harvest drying agent.
"Congress required EPA to ensure that pesticide residues in food are safe, with particular protection for children," the new filing states. "Yet, more than seven years after being presented with substantial scientific evidence that the current tolerance for glyphosate in oats may not meet that standard, EPA has failed to make any final, reviewable determination."
EWG president and co-founder Ken Cook declared in a Tuesday statement that "parents shouldn't have to second-guess whether everyday foods like cereal and snack bars are putting their children at risk of cancer."
"The EPA's silence leaves families in the dark and falls far short of its responsibility to protect public health," he continued. "It's time for the agency to stop stalling and do its job."
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic" to humanity over a decade ago, while the EPA has repeatedly claimed that it is not likely to cause cancer in humans despite mounting research, the recent retraction of a landmark study on the pesticide's supposed safety, and legal battles between patients and Bayer, which bought Monsanto in 2018.
Next week, the nation's top court is set to hear arguments in a case that, as EWG warned Tuesday, "could have sweeping implications for whether farmers and consumers can keep pursuing lawsuits for harms linked to glyphosate, and whether states can require warning labels on glyphosate products."
The Wall Street Journal noted Monday that while the company continues to insist on glyphosate's safety, it "wants anyone with a claim to join the settlement" negotiated with a team of lawyers representing around 40,000 claimants that "would bring Bayer's total price tag to resolve the Roundup litigation to roughly $22 billion."
Despite Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s campaign promise to "Make America Healthy Again," the administration has notably sided with Bayer in the case before the Supreme Court, and the president in February even issued an executive order mandating the production of glyphosate.
"If anyone still wondered whether 'Make America Healthy Again' was a genuine commitment to protecting public health or a scam concocted by President Trump and RFK Jr. to rally health-conscious voters in 2024, today's decision answers that question," Cook said at the time. "It's a shocking betrayal to all of us but especially the people who live and work near farm fields where glyphosate is used."
Still, EWG is plowing ahead with its legal action, arguing that "the EPA has a clear legal duty to act on this petition, and it has simply refused to do so," as the group's general counsel and COO, Caroline Leary, put it. "This kind of delay has real consequences for families who rely on the agency to ensure children are not exposed to toxic farm chemical residues like glyphosate."
"This is exactly the kind of situation where courts are meant to step in," Leary added. "The EPA cannot avoid its responsibilities simply by doing nothing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Don’t Let Congress Give Another Industry a Free Pass
Giving fossil fuel companies immunity is a dangerous move that should be strongly rejected.
Apr 10, 2026
One of Americans’ fundamental rights is under threat: the ability to hold bad actors accountable in court. Across the country, bills aiming to restrict communities from taking corporations and other parties to court over their environmental harm and pollution are moving through state legislatures. Utah became the first state to pass a law all but shutting down communities’ ability to hold gas-emitting polluters responsible for harms caused by their bad actions. Tennessee is poised to be next.
This is part of a familiar playbook. Last month, President Donad Trump signed an executive order that effectively shields pesticide manufacturers—including Bayer, the maker of Roundup—from billions in lawsuits alleging their products cause cancer. Overnight, pesticide producers gained legal immunity. Because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not classify glyphosate, Roundup’s main ingredient, as a carcinogen, the order now blocks dozens of lawsuits arguing that Bayer failed to warn consumers of the risks—lawsuits Bayer was considering spending more than $7 billion to settle out of court.
The fossil fuel industry wants that same legal carve out. For decades, fossil fuel companies misled the public about the risks of climate change, and are now fighting dozens of lawsuits that could expose decades of deception. Instead of answering in court, Big Oil is lobbying for its own blanket liability shield, backed by 16 Republican attorneys general. Not only has the oil and gas industry successfully convinced state legislators to move these protections forward, but a congressional House representative confirmed recently that federal lawmakers are also working on legislation that would block the fossil fuel industry from having to face any laws or lawsuits that aim to hold it accountable for its deception.
In other words, rather than defend itself in court, Big Oil is lobbying lawmakers to rewrite the rules.
If ExxonMobil believes it never misled the public, let it prove that in court.
The broader problem is clear: Powerful industries hide the dangers of their products, and once the truth emerges, they race to Congress to close the courthouse doors. If lawmakers hand out immunity, the victims are left with nothing. Supporters claim immunity is needed to prevent “frivolous” lawsuits or protect jobs. But that’s exactly what courts are for: to weigh evidence, reject weak claims, and hold wrongdoers accountable. If Bayer truly believes Roundup is safe, it should have no fear of a jury. And, for that matter, if ExxonMobil believes it never misled the public, let it prove that in court.
Immunity shields aren’t routine policy. They are radical interventions that strip away the rights of ordinary Americans while giving corporations extraordinary protection. That’s why only one industry, the gun lobby, has ever successfully won such a carve out, and its 2005 law remains widely condemned as a historic mistake. Even some conservatives are balking. The “Make America Healthy Again” movement, made up of Trump-aligned parents worried about pesticides in food, has erupted against the Bayer immunity provision, warning Republican lawmakers they’ll pay a political price. Their outrage reflects something deeper, which is that Americans across the spectrum believe no one should be above the law.
Congress should listen. Giving fossil fuel companies immunity is a dangerous move that should be strongly rejected. If these industries want to avoid liability, they should do it the same way everyone else does, by making their case in court. Anything else would betray a basic American principle: Justice should be decided by juries, not lobbyists.
Keep ReadingShow Less
EPA Ripped for 'Routinely' Failing to Label Cancer-Causing Pesticides
"If the agency is going to allow such chemicals to be freely sold at Home Depot, Walmart, and farm supply stores, the very least the EPA must do is require a clear cancer warning on the label," said one critic.
Mar 30, 2026
The US Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly failed to warn consumers of the cancer risks posed by pesticides—even when its own research has found those products to be carcinogenic, a pair of green groups said Monday.
The Center for Food Safety studied the EPA's permitted risk level in active components of both currently approved and legacy pesticides. CFS researchers found that the EPA allowed pesticides with a cancer risk "as high as 1 in every 100 people exposed, a far greater level than the EPA’s benchmark of a 1-in-a-million chance of developing cancer."
"Of the 570 unique pesticide chemicals that EPA’s Office of Pesticide program has classified for carcinogenic potential since 1985, over one-third (200, or 35%) are either possible human carcinogens (127) or likely to be carcinogenic to humans (73)," the CFS report notes. "The status of 62 others (11%) is uncertain, because EPA lacks sufficient data to make a determination.
A second report, from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), shows that of the 200 pesticides that are possible or likely human carcinogens, 125 are still registered for use.
CBD analyzed the labels of every pesticide currently approved by the EPA and found that the agency has placed cancer warnings on just 69 of 4,919 pesticide labels (1.4%) "containing an active ingredient that the agency has designated a 'likely' human carcinogen." Additionally, the EPA has put cancer warnings on just 242 of the 22,147 pesticide labels (1.1%) that "contain an ingredient the agency has designated as a 'possible' human carcinogen."
CFS science director Bill Freeses said in a statement Monday: “It’s bad enough that the EPA approves cancer-causing pesticides. But if the agency is going to allow such chemicals to be freely sold at Home Depot, Walmart, and farm supply stores, the very least the EPA must do is require a clear cancer warning on the label. Warnings save lives by incentivizing users to wear protective equipment that reduces risk."
Lori Ann Burd, director of environmental health at the CBD, said on Monday that “it's dumbfounding that the EPA has failed to require any cancer warning on thousands of pesticide products sold to the public that the agency itself has linked to cancer."
“Why should anyone have confidence in the EPA’s ability to keep tabs on the pesticide industry and protect us all from harmful poisons when it won’t even compel companies to put long-term health warnings on pesticides it knows are really dangerous?" she added.
Last month, CFS, CBD, and others denounced the EPA's reapproval of the pesticide dicamba—which scientific studies have linked to increased risk of cancer and hypothyroidism in high-dose exposure—for certain cotton and soybean crops.
The new CFS and CBD analyses come ahead of next month's oral arguments in Monsanto Company v. John L. Durnell, a case before the US Supreme Court in which Bayer, the Germany-based pharma giant that bought Monsanto in 2018, is seeking substantial immunity from future lawsuits filed by people in the United States who used glyphosate-based products like Roundup weedkiller and were then diagnosed with rare pesticide-linked cancers. The company has paid out billions of dollars to settle such suits.
CBD and other advocacy groups have also warned that the industry-backed Farm Bill currently advancing in the Republican-controlled Congress weakens or delays pesticide safety regulation, preempts state-level cancer warning rules, and shields chemical companies from lawsuits.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular