What’s At Stake
What is the case about?
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell, which could reduce the ability of consumers to sue companies for failing to warn of product risks, specifically in pesticides. At issue is whether federal law governing pesticide labeling under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state law failure to warn claims when the EPA has already approved the product’s label. The plaintiffs argue Monsanto should have included additional cancer warnings under state law, while Monsanto argues it cannot be held liable for labels that comply with federal, science-based standards.
Who is affected?
Every individual living in the United States will be affected by this decision.
Why does it matter?
The product at the center of the litigation is glyphosate (commonly known as Roundup). Regulatory bodies, including the EPA, have repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not carcinogenic to humans when used properly. The Supreme Court is not re-litigating the science of glyphosate or deciding whether it causes cancer. The only issue is a legal one before the Court: whether federal law preempts state law claims that seek to impose different or additional warning requirements.
Our Take
The case before the Supreme Court is not about the safety of glyphosate, it is about who sets the rules. Congress enacted the FIFRA to create a uniform, national system for pesticide labeling based on scientific expertise. The EPA reviews the data and determines what warnings are appropriate. Allowing state lawsuits to impose additional or conflicting requirements would undermine that system and expose companies to liability simply for following federal law. If federal standards can be overridden by juries, the result will be a patchwork of rules and higher costs, consequences that ultimately fall on American families.
