The app for independent voices
Glyphosate / Roundup Litigation Update
The case Monsanto v Durnell (24-1068) was distributed for conference today December 16th, 2025. A supplemental brief of 13 pages was also filed today by the respondent Durnell. Justics will discuss taking up the case on Friday Jan 9th 2026 and a decision to grant certiorari or deny will be expected soon after. On December 1, 2025, the Solicitor General filed an amicus brief supporting urging the Court to clarify the scope of FIFRA preemption where EPA has repeatedly concluded that the proposed warning is not required. In my opinion, the brief was poorly written. All documents are in the docket.
Retraction
In early December 2025, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology retracted the 2000 Williams, Kroes & Munro glyphosate review doi.org/10.1006/rtph.19… following findings of undisclosed Monsanto ghostwriting, financial relationships, and selective reliance on largely unpublished company studies. Despite what you may see on social media, it does not materially affect glyphosate’s regulatory status that is based on extensive toxicology, exposure, and risk-assessment data evaluated by EPA and other authorities over decades and not on a single ~25-year-old review.
ECHA and EFSA Reevaluation (2022-2023)
In 2022, ECHA’s Committee for Risk Assessment reviewed thousands of studies and reaffirmed glyphosate’s classifications for serious eye damage and aquatic toxicity, while again finding that criteria for carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, or reproductive toxicity under EU law were not met. In 2023, EFSA completed its peer review of the glyphosate renewal dossier, assessing toxicology, epidemiology, residues, and environmental fate data, and identified no “critical areas of concern” for human health when used as proposed. Although some data gaps exist and require risk-management consideration, these evaluations that included an analysis of more than 2,400 studies and extensive public comment still represents the most comprehensive pesticide review to date. The European Commission’s subsequent ten-year renewal was based on the totality of evidence.
Claims that the retraction invalidates regulatory approvals or reveals previously unrecognized hazards substantially overstate what a journal retraction can support. There is some irony in that, here, the louder “merchants of doubt” are aligned less with the chemical industry than with the tort industry.
<I will update with time, edited 5:22pm 16Dec25>