The American Soybean Association released a statement following today’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in Durnell v. Monsanto, a case addressing whether state failure-to-warn claims can override federal pesticide labeling decisions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Court ruled that FIFRA and federal labeling requirements preempt state failure-to-warn claims. “Farmers depend on clear, consistent labeling and a uniform regulatory framework to use pesticides safely and responsibly. The Supreme Court’s decision provides much-needed clarity on the role of federal, science-based regulation and reaffirms the value of sound science in the regulatory process. For decades, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, along with regulatory authorities around the world, has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk when used as directed. State-level requirements have led to a burdensome regulatory patchwork that conflicts with EPA-approved labels and creates confusion, undermining confidence in the regulatory process and limiting access to essential crop protection tools.” Earlier this year, ASA joined 11 other agricultural organizations in an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court, to defend farmer access to critical crop protection tools against continued threats of regulatory overreach and activist litigation.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, holding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims based on pesticide labeling when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not required the warning at issue. The decision provides important clarity regarding the relationship between federal pesticide regulation and state tort law, reaffirming EPA’s authority to establish labeling requirements based on scientific review and risk assessment. The ruling helps ensure a consistent national framework for pesticide labeling and regulation. “This decision is a win for farmers and the broader agricultural community,” said Sam Kieffer, NAWG CEO NAWG. “Farmers depend on clear, predictable, science-based regulations and continued access to effective crop protection tools. Today’s decision reaffirms that EPA’s label, based on a rigorous process of scientific review, is the law. NAWG continues to support a regulatory system grounded in sound science, transparency, and consistency.”
Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Monsanto v. Durnell that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act preempts state labeling requirements that are in addition to or different from federal labeling requirements. This decision puts to rest many years of uncertainty on the future of pesticide labeling and availability for farmers. “This is great news for all farmers in the country,” said Jed Bower, Ohio farmer and National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) president. “Today’s decision reaffirms that FIFRA is the law of the land and states cannot add undue and unproven requirements not backed by science.” The EPA has repeatedly confirmed that glyphosate does not cause cancer, as has every major regulatory body around the world. However, a long series of court cases alleging a failure to warn users of the risks of cancer, despite EPA’s repeated conclusion that it does not, have put at odds FIFRA labeling requirements and the ability of states to add additional labels that conflict with federal findings and labels. Without today’s decision, pesticide manufacturers could have been forced to manage state-based labels that contradict federal findings for all products in all 50 states, which would likely have led to increased costs, reduced product availability for farmers and diminished innovation. NCGA highlighted these concerns in an amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court earlier this year.
