By Mary Hightower
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture

Fast facts

    • EPA receives petition to add warnings to pesticide labels
    • Petition could take years, attorney says 
A head-and-shoulders portrait of a woman with a warm, pleasant smile, looking directly at the camera against a plain, light grey background. She has brown, shoulder-length wavy hair with full bangs and wears round, tortoiseshell-patterned cat-eye glasses with thin metal rims. Her outfit consists of a light lavender-purple button-up knit cardigan worn open over a textured, ribbed cream-colored tank top. She is accessorized with thin silver hoop earrings and a small, subtle silver nose stud.

A petition from the Center for Biological Diversity reflects an effort to change pesticide labeling requirements, says Brigit Rollins, staff attorney for the National Agricultural Law Center. (UADA photo)

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — A request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to add cancer warnings to certain pesticide labels likely won’t be resolved quickly.

Thirteen days after the June 25 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, which held that FIFRA preempts certain state law failure-to-warn claims based on EPA-approved pesticide labels, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to amend its pesticide labeling regulations.

Specifically, the petition asks EPA to require cancer warnings on pesticide products containing active ingredients EPA has determined are known/probable/likely/possible human carcinogens or have suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity.

“The petition argues that the change is necessary to satisfy EPA’s obligations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, which requires labels to include warnings needed to protect human health,” said Brigit Rollins, staff attorney for the National Agricultural Law Center.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act allows EPA to regulate the distribution, sale, production, and use of pesticides and pesticide devices in the United States.

The Durnell lawsuit was initially brought by a plaintiff who claimed that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, had caused him to develop cancer and Monsanto had failed to warn him of that risk.

“Although the Supreme Court agreed with Monsanto that federal pesticide law prevented the plaintiff from raising that specific claim, the high court noted that anyone could petition EPA to require cancer warnings on registered pesticide products,” Rollins said. “The recent petition from CBD reflects an effort to change pesticide labeling requirements through that process.”

To read the full article, click here.

Share: