In a decision that has fueled ongoing controversy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has maintained its position that cancer warning labels are not required on Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides. This stance puts the EPA at odds with the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015, and with multiple jury verdicts finding that Roundup causes cancer. For New Mexico consumers who have used Roundup and been diagnosed with cancer, the EPA’s position does not eliminate your legal rights.
The EPA’s refusal to require cancer warnings has become a central issue in the broader Roundup litigation, with Bayer AG (which acquired Monsanto in 2018) citing the EPA’s position as evidence that Roundup is safe. However, courts have largely rejected the argument that the EPA’s assessment shields Bayer from liability, and juries have continued to find in favor of plaintiffs.
The EPA’s Position on Glyphosate
EPA’s Assessment
The EPA has concluded that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” at doses relevant to human health. Based on this assessment, the agency has determined that cancer warning labels are not warranted and has gone further — in 2019, the EPA issued guidance stating that it would not approve labels containing cancer warnings for glyphosate products, arguing that such warnings would be “false and misleading.”
Criticism of the EPA’s Assessment
The EPA’s position has been criticized on several grounds:
- Reliance on industry studies — Critics argue that the EPA relied too heavily on studies funded by Monsanto/Bayer while giving insufficient weight to independent research
- Selective review — The EPA’s assessment has been criticized for excluding or downplaying studies that found evidence of carcinogenicity
- Monsanto influence — Internal Monsanto documents (the “Monsanto Papers”) revealed that the company cultivated relationships with EPA officials and sought to influence the agency’s assessment of glyphosate
- Conflict with IARC — The EPA’s conclusion directly contradicts IARC’s classification, which was based on a comprehensive review of publicly available scientific literature
Court Challenges
In 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the EPA’s interim registration decision for glyphosate, finding that the agency had not adequately addressed certain risks. The court ordered the EPA to revisit its assessment, though the agency has maintained its core position on carcinogenicity.
IARC vs. EPA: Understanding the Disagreement
The disagreement between IARC and the EPA stems from differences in methodology and scope:
- IARC evaluates whether a substance can cause cancer under any circumstances (hazard identification). IARC reviewed only publicly available, peer-reviewed studies and concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.”
- EPA evaluates whether a substance is likely to cause cancer at real-world exposure levels (risk assessment). The EPA included industry-submitted studies not available to IARC and concluded that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic” at relevant doses.
Both approaches have scientific validity, but the inclusion of industry-funded studies in the EPA’s assessment — and the exclusion of those studies from IARC’s review — is a key point of contention.
What the EPA’s Position Means for Your Legal Rights
The EPA’s refusal to require cancer warnings does not prevent you from filing a product liability lawsuit against Bayer/Monsanto. Here’s why:
Juries Decide Liability
In product liability cases, it is the jury — not the EPA — that determines whether a product is defective and whether the manufacturer is liable. Multiple juries have found that Roundup causes cancer and that Monsanto failed to warn consumers, despite the EPA’s position.
Federal Preemption Is Not Settled
Bayer has argued that the EPA’s position preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims — meaning that if the EPA says no warning is needed, states cannot impose liability for the absence of a warning. This argument has been rejected by several courts, though it remains a live legal issue that could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
Multiple Legal Theories
Even if federal preemption were to limit failure-to-warn claims, other legal theories — including design defect, negligence, and fraud — remain available to plaintiffs.
New Mexico Product Liability Law
New Mexico’s product liability laws provide strong consumer protections:
- Strict liability for defective products
- Failure to warn claims for products lacking adequate safety warnings
- Pure comparative negligence (NMSA § 41-3A-1)
- Three-year statute of limitations from discovery (N.M. Stat. § 37-1-8)
Who Can File a Claim?
You may have a viable claim if you regularly used Roundup or other glyphosate-based herbicides and were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, or other lymphatic cancers.
Compensation Available
- Medical expenses
- Lost wages and earning capacity
- Pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Loss of enjoyment of life
- Punitive damages
- Wrongful death damages
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the EPA’s position mean Roundup is safe?
Not necessarily. The EPA’s assessment has been criticized for relying on industry-funded studies and for conflicting with IARC’s independent review. Multiple juries have found that Roundup causes cancer despite the EPA’s position. The scientific debate is ongoing.
Can I still sue if the EPA says no warning is needed?
Yes. The EPA’s position does not prevent you from filing a product liability lawsuit. Courts have largely rejected the argument that the EPA’s assessment preempts state-law claims, and juries continue to find in favor of plaintiffs.
What if Roundup doesn’t have a cancer warning label?
The absence of a cancer warning on Roundup’s label is actually a key element of failure-to-warn claims. Plaintiffs argue that Monsanto/Bayer should have included a cancer warning regardless of the EPA’s position, and juries have agreed.
Is the EPA likely to change its position?
The EPA is currently revisiting its glyphosate assessment following the Ninth Circuit’s 2022 order. Whether this will result in a changed position remains to be seen. Regardless of the EPA’s ultimate conclusion, your legal rights are determined by the courts, not by regulatory agencies.
Contact Dominguez Law for a Free Consultation
If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with cancer after using Roundup, do not let the EPA’s position discourage you from seeking justice. At Dominguez Law, we have the experience and resources to pursue your claim aggressively, regardless of the regulatory landscape.
Contact us today for a free, confidential consultation. There is no fee unless we recover compensation for you. Se habla español.
