Ag News

Supreme Court: FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims

On June 25, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Monsanto v. Durnell that Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) labeling requirements for pesticides – including glyphosate – preempt state court “failure-to-warn” claims. This is a decisive win for Monsanto and farmers who rely on pesticides and EPA’s robust registration process.

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) previously filed an amicus brief with a grower group coalition in support of Monsanto.

In the amicus brief, AFBF and numerous other agricultural stakeholder groups pointed out that glyphosate’s availability has produced significant benefits for farmers, consumers, and the environment, while its widespread use indicates recognition that it is effective, economical, and environmentally benign compared to available alternatives. The groups also asserted that blocking access to glyphosate would severely impair U.S. agriculture.

Writing for a 7-2 majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Amy Koney Barrett. 

The court opinion noted that FIFRA’s preemption clause prohibits states from imposing or continuing in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from the law’s provisions.

“FIFRA therefore preempts a state-law labeling requirement that differs from the federal labeling requirements imposed under FIFRA. ‘Uniformity’ in labeling—the textually stated objective of FIFRA’s preemption clause—would otherwise be impossible to achieve.”

The justices pointed out that under federal law, Monsanto was required to obtain EPA’s approval for its Roundup label at registration and to use the EPA-approved Roundup label unless, in the future, EPA approved or required changes to the label.

Durnell’s failure-to-warn claim, meanwhile, would require Monsanto to place a cancer warning on Roundup’s label. That state labeling requirement is “in addition to or different from” EPA’s labeling determinations that do not mandate a cancer warning. Durnell’s failure-to-warn claim is expressly preempted.”

The Supreme Court Opinion can be read here. To read the AFBF amicus brief, click here.

---

• Categories:

• Tags:

---