Publications: Pesticides

 

Issue Brief: United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Orders EPA to Ban Chlorpyrifos

James Wilkerson, Research Fellow; National Agricultural Law Center
Elizabeth Rumley, Senior Staff Attorney; National Agricultural Law Center

This short informational piece provides essential background, current events, relevant legal issues, and additional resources regarding the 9th Circuit’s 2018 order to ban chlorpyrifos.  Further, it provides a current legal status to the case. Download this articlePosted 11/29/18 


Potential Spray Drift Damage: What Steps to Take?

Tiffany Dowell Lashmet, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service

As many farmers know all too well, applications of various pesticides can result in drift and cause damage to neighboring property owners.  In recent years, incidences of spray drift damage have been frequent and well-publicized.  In the event a farmer discovers damage to his or her own crop, this article details some important steps for the injured producer to take.  Download this articlePosted 10/25/17 



Supreme Court Considers Preemption of State Law Claims Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

Harrison M. Pittman Staff Attorney National Agricultural Law Center

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) regulates the use and distribution of pesticides through comprehensive labeling and registration requirements.  FIFRA provides the federal government wide latitude to regulate pesticides but authorizes states to play a role as well.  In particular, FIFRA provides that “[a] State may regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device in the State, but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this subchapter.”  It also provides that “[s]uch State shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter.  The issue arises as to whether state common law tort claims are preempted by FIFRA because the claims impose requirements “in addition to or different” from those imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the federal agency responsible for implementing FIFRA.  This article discusses FIFRA, the evolution of courts’ views regarding FIFRA preemption of state law tort claims, and two recent federal circuit court decisions, one of which the United States Supreme Court has agreed to review.    Download this article Posted:  April 19, 2005