Public health leaders and food experts joined America’s small farmers and regenerative agriculture experts to eviscerate today’s bipartisan Supreme Court decision, which they believe sells out the American people to foreign chemical corporations. The decision takes away the rights of family members and those who have died or are sick from glyphosate exposure to hold Bayer/Monsanto legally accountable. The decision was a major victory for Big Poison, which sought immunity from liability.

Below are reactions from policy experts and grassroots leaders.

We’re profoundly disappointed that the Supreme Court has restricted farmers' and consumers’ ability to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable for the harm their toxic products have caused. Now, Congress has a moral responsibility to put people’s health over pesticide industry profits by codifying a legal pathway for those hurt by toxic pesticide exposure. The public will continue demanding change until the EPA takes toxic pesticides off the market for good and Congress invests in the transition to a clean, healthy organic food system that doesn’t depend on toxic pesticides.

• Jason Davidson, Senior Food and Agriculture Campaigner at Friends of the Earth

The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of foreign chemical companies, which essentially allows them immunity from lawsuits, is a travesty against the American Constitution and federal and state laws. Not only does it remove our Seventh Amendment right to seek justice, but it also allows chemical companies to continue to poison the American people and our soils with impunity. Citizen scientists, activists, and farmers everywhere will only get louder and more creative because of this ruling.

• Zen Honeycutt, Moms Across America

Today’s ruling sets a dangerous precedent by elevating regulatory approval above judicial review and citizen access to justice. The separation of powers exists to provide independent oversight and protect against regulatory capture. No agency should have the final word on corporate accountability when products designed to kill are released into the environment and used throughout our food system.

• Elizabeth Kucinich, human and ecological security specialist, former Director of Policy at the Center for Food Safety

The Supreme Court has chosen to interpret FIFRA in a way that serves corporate interests at the expense of states' rights and public welfare.

• Charles Eisenstein, writer and former speech writer, RFK Jr for President

President Trump campaigned on MAHA and then filed legal briefs protecting Bayer-Monsanto from farmers who got cancer because of their products. That’s a serious betrayal. There's a real awakening happening in this country around food safety and toxic chemicals, and this court ruling cannot stop that. We're going to keep fighting to help farmers transition away from these pesticides, and to hold the corporations that profit from them accountable.

-Tim Ryan, former ten-term member of Congress (D-OH)

It's awful news that the Supreme Court and the Trump Administration sided with Bayer over thousands of Americans who say the company's products caused their cancers. This decision will make it harder for people to hold corporations accountable in the U.S.

• Stacy Malkan, Co-founder, editor, U.S. Right to Know

For decades, Republicans have preached about the importance of states’ rights and “pro-life values,” but today’s ruling in favor of Bayer-Monsanto’s right to shield themselves from cancer lawsuits is more proof that this is just empty rhetoric from a morally bankrupt party and a Supreme Court that continues to put corporate profits over the health of Americans.

• David Murphy, founder of United We Eat, former finance director for RFK, Jr’s presidential campaign