On June 25, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the EPA, not state courts, has final authority over pesticide labels—siding with Monsanto in glyphosate litigation. Here’s what it means for farmers.
“It is not just a win for Bayer, it is a win for farmers everywhere in this country,” says Mark Mueller, Iowa Corn Growers Association President and farmer from Waverly, Iowa. “My gut reaction is that it is a win for farmers. I am a farmer that does no-till, he uses cover crops, I do things in a most sustainable fashion, and access to glyphosate is a critical tool in that toolbox. It allows me to not disturb the soil, it allows me to be a better steward of the environment.”
So what does that Supreme Court decision really mean?
1. It Confirms Federal Pre-emption
With glyphosate’s widely used application, this recent court case brings some stability to its use and supply. Previously, Bayer executives publicly spoke of the possibility in discontinuing manufacturing of the product if the legal liabilities weren’t under control.
“The court pretty broadly, 7-2, held that EPA, not state courts and not state juries, have the final say over labeling on products,” says John Dillard, attorney at OFW Law.
That translates to pesticide manufacturers, retailers and farmers needing to meet the EPA standards in terms of liability.
“Here, the court made pretty clear that there is one arbiter of what should be included on pesticide labels and the single process to address any grievances over that is through the registration process,” Dillard adds.
In regulatory terms, the SCOTUS decision confirms the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as the overriding standard. And federal law pre-empts state law.
Daren Coppock, CEO and president of the Agricultural Retailers Association says this court case was a “big win” for retailers who alternatively could have faced an impossible task.
“It really stops a situation where we would have potentially had 50 different labels in each of the 50 states that chemical manufacturers and retailers would have had to manage, and that’s impossible to do,” he says.
2. It Restricts Future Litigation
To-date Bayer’s subsidiary Monsanto has been managing 180,000 lawsuits filed with claims against glyphosate. Bayer has paid more than $10 billion to plaintiffs in litigation claiming Roundup as the cause of their cancer.
With pending cases still in the court system, what does the Supreme Court decision mean?
“It’s the million dollar question right there,” says Brigit Rollins, staff attorney at the National Ag Law Center. “Right away, this means all of those pending cases that have raised failure to warn claims, they will not be able to continue arguing those claims, because now those claims are preempted.”
Rollins says many say the failure to warn claim has been the most successful in the lawsuits, so while plaintiffs can raise other arguments in the lawsuit, the failure to warn claim must be removed or will be dismissed.
“Plaintiffs now have a choice: Are they going to continue to litigate and see if they can be successful based on just their other arguments alone? Or are they going to maybe now be more likely to settle?” she says.
Dillard adds, “it should have a significant impact on future litigation. I am aware that Bayer has settled several lawsuits. It’s not something where they can really go back in time on anything that is settled. But for future litigation, if it is based on the idea that they failed to warn users of these products about the potential carcinogen harms or hazards, that is no longer something they have to be concerned about from a state law perspective.”
3. It Could Alter The Discussion of the Farm Bill
There’s been action on Capitol Hill to block states from requiring labels different from the EPA. The latest Farm Bill action has included Agriculture Labeling Uniformity Act on the house side, but it was omitted in the Senate language. During the House debate, the MAHA coalition raised its voices in opposition to the bill language.
As the Farm Bill proceeds through the Senate Committee, it’s a policy implication to watch.
“It certainly brings it to a head,” Dillard says. “It’s not strictly Republican/Democrat in terms of the view of whether there should be preemption of the state litigation over the failure to warn. And if there is momentum to revise EPA’s approach or the preemption aspect of FIFRA, we could see action. It could certainly motivate action, whether that’s enough to clear a majority in the House or get 60 votes in the Senate is another question.”
4. Preserves Some State Authority
The decision is focused on the labeling process and the failure to warn claims. And while the federal authority is viewed as pre-empting state law in that regard, there are additional restrictions states can place on pesticide usage.
Coppock says this is something being closely monitored by ag retailers.
“It does nothing to restrict the ability of states to apply temperature standards or to make a registration decision, yes or no, on whether the product can even be used in their state. So, it’s fairly targeted, but on the point for failure to warn, it’s a big deal,” he says.
Previous Coverage: Supreme Court Rules FIFRA Preempts Roundup Cancer Lawsuits
