By Mary Hightower
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture
Fast Facts
- Pesticide litigation likely to change directions
- SCOTUS sends Durnell back to lower court
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that federal law preempts state law when it comes to warnings on pesticide labels may reverberate through previous court decisions involving million-dollar civil awards.
Last week, the high court issued a ruling in Monsanto Company v. John L. Durnell. In 2019, John Durnell of St. Louis sued Monsanto claiming that two decades of glyphosate use caused him cancer. In 2023, a jury found Monsanto liable for failure to warn of potential cancer risks and awarded Durnell $1.25 million.
“Failure to warn” is about what entity decides whether a cancer warning is needed on a label. Acting under FIFRA, the Environmental Protection Agency approves pesticide labels through a process that includes scientific review and public comment. States may regulate sales and use of pesticides but may not alter labels.
The difference between state and federal authority over labels determines which law applies — state or federal — rather than which court gets to hear the case.
In its ruling, SCOTUS said that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act or FIFRA expressly pre-empts a state-law failure-to-warn claim against Monsanto, because such a claim would require the company to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label that is not part of the EPA-approved label.
“Going forward, failure to warn claims in pesticide liability lawsuits will be considered preempted by FIFRA, which means it will be virtually impossible for plaintiffs to argue those claims in court,” said Brigit Rollins, staff attorney for the National Agricultural Law Center.”
The ruling “is likely going to be a major blow to plaintiffs in Roundup cases and any other pesticide liability case because failure to warn claims have become standard for those cases and have thus far been a pretty successful argument for plaintiffs’ attorneys,” Rollins said.
As a result of the SCOTUS ruling, the Durnell case was sent back to the lower courts.
To read the full news article, click here.