The U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to protect American agriculture and the scientific standards that protect our farmers, food, and families by taking up Monsanto v. Durnell. At issue is whether pesticide labels should be governed by consistent federal law and well-documented science-based standards or by a patchwork of conflicting state standards. The Supreme Court should take this case to confirm congressional direction, eliminate confusion, restore clarity for American farmers, and increase confidence in our food supply for American families.
Pesticide labeling may seem like a niche issue, but it has far-reaching implications for American agriculture. If the Supreme Court declines to hear this case, lower courts will continue to issue conflicting decisions. This inconsistency further perpetuates public confusion about food safety, undermines confidence in farming operations, and deters innovation and investment in American agriculture.
Under federal law, Congress gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate pesticides. The EPA conducts rigorous, science-based reviews of dozens of human health and environmental studies to determine that each approved pesticide does not pose an unreasonable risk when used according to the label requirements. Manufacturers typically invest over $300 million in research and development and in EPA-mandated studies to bring a pesticide to the marketplace. That process normally takes more than a decade, and no pesticide product can be sold without the EPA’s registration and explicit approval of its label language.
These labels are not mere suggestions – they are enforceable under federal law. Each carries the statement: “It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.” The EPA-approved label includes safety instructions and any required health warnings based on the Agency’s scientific analysis.
Importantly, the federal pesticide law is clear – once the EPA approves a label, individual states may not impose additional or conflicting label requirements, such as state-specific cancer warnings. Yet some courts across several states have misinterpreted the federal law, creating precisely the type of confusion and inconsistency that Congress sought to avoid over pesticide products used nationwide.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here
In the Durnell case, a Missouri appellate court upheld a jury verdict imposing liability under state law for selling a glyphosate product without a cancer warning, even though the EPA-approved label did not require such a warning. That verdict disregarded decades of EPA’s scientific evaluations, which have repeatedly concluded that glyphosate-based pesticides do not cause cancer. In fact, the EPA issued a letter to all glyphosate registrants stating that including a cancer warning label would render the product misbranded under the pesticide law and, therefore, illegal to sell.
In contrast, the court in another recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals case, Schaffner v. Monsanto, found that federal pesticide law prohibited plaintiffs’ state law claims seeking damages based on the failure to include a cancer warning on glyphosate-based pesticides, where the EPA had approved labels without such warnings. In Schaffner, the court found that our robust federal pesticide regulations clarify what can and should be on a pesticide label, giving context to the law’s misbranding standards. Those regulations require the EPA to approve all labels and do not allow states to require a cancer warning when the EPA has determined a pesticide does not cause cancer.
This legal conflict creates an impossible dilemma for manufacturers - following federal law and EPA science, but risking liability under state law. Or ignore federal human health findings to comply with conflicting state demands but risking federal misbranding liability. The resulting uncertainty jeopardizes the viability of useful products and discourages investment in new tools that farmers need to protect their crops from weeds, disease, and pests.
Allowing each state to impose its own labeling requirements will confuse consumers and farmers about the actual risk associated with using a specific product. That’s why Congress included language in the federal pesticide law prohibiting additional or conflicting label requirements by the states.
The Supreme Court should step in and review this case to restore legal clarity, reaffirm Congress’s intent, and ensure that regulatory decisions are made by scientific experts who understand the chemistries.
Farmers deserve certainty, consumers deserve confidence, and our food system deserves science-based regulation. The Supreme Court can, and should, make that possible.
Alexandra Dunn is president and CEO of CropLife America. She served as assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention from 2019-2021. She is an active attorney, licensed in four states.
.webp?t=1719320406)