Monsanto Company v. Durnell
Decision
7-2BrynoDC Coverage 2 videos
Opinion of the Court
Overview
Overview
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.
The Facts
Facts
John Durnell alleges that regular use of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide (glyphosate-based) caused him to develop non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and he brought a state-law failure-to-warn claim. Monsanto argues that because the EPA approved the product's label and found glyphosate is not likely carcinogenic, FIFRA preempts any state-law claim requiring a different or additional cancer warning. Multiple circuits have split on whether FIFRA preempts such claims.
The Issue
Issue
Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act expressly preempts state failure-to-warn tort claims when the EPA has approved a pesticide's label and concluded the product is not likely carcinogenic to humans.
The Rules
Rule
FIFRA's express preemption provision (7 U.S.C. § 136v(b)) bars states from imposing labeling requirements 'in addition to or different from' federal requirements. Under Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), FIFRA does not preempt state tort claims that are fully consistent with and parallel to FIFRA's labeling mandates. Courts have split on whether a state duty to warn that the EPA has specifically rejected constitutes a 'different' requirement preempted by federal law.
The Application
Analysis
Monsanto argues FIFRA § 136v(b) expressly preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims when the EPA has reviewed and approved a pesticide's labeling. Requiring different or additional warnings under state law creates conflicting obligations Congress intended to prevent. The EPA's determination that glyphosate is 'not likely to be carcinogenic' should control.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
[Awaiting opinion]
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support