The technical logic behind the glyphosate case is actually quite solid—EPA’s pesticide registration process includes a complete toxicology assessment workflow, including chronic carcinogenicity animal studies and human epidemiological data. They concluded that glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic risk to humans. During Trump’s tenure, the Department of Justice defended this argument at the Supreme Court on behalf of Bayer/Monsanto. In essence, it’s an extreme application of the federal preemption principle: once federal agencies have reached a final scientific determination, states can’t use labeling disclosures to sidestep that decision and fight another round of public-opinion battles. However, that is separate from whether the EPA itself was influenced by Bayer’s lobbying—the technical argument and political motivations should be evaluated separately.