|
 |
|
|
|||
|
 |
|
Apr. 28, 2026
AgDaily.com reports: In February of last year, the Missouri Court of Appeals allowed a $1.25 million award to stand in one of the nation's most prominent glyphosate-related lawsuits against Monsanto. That case centered around plaintiff John Durnell's claim in 2019 that he developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after years of using the herbicide Roundup. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell in what is expected to become one of the most landmark agricultural decisions in American history. And it will go a long way toward future decisions in the tens of thousands of cases Monsanto's new owner, Bayer, is facing related to Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate. The case going before SCOTUS centers on whether federal pesticide law preempts state law failure-to-warn claims. Similar preemption language to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is included in other federal statutes such as those regulating medical devices, poultry products, meat, and motor vehicles. Bayer argues that it should applies here as well, with U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer saying that federal scientific findings should not be second-guessed at the state level. "The agency has repeatedly approved Roundup labels that did not contain cancer warnings," Sauer said in an amicus brief filed to the Supreme Court in December. "Where, as here, EPA has specified the health warnings that should appear on a particular pesticide's label, a manufacturer should not be left subject" to states each prescribing different labeling requirements. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and every other regulator worldwide that has independently assessed the safety of glyphosate has concluded it can be used safely. Early in the oral arguments, which began around noon Eastern Time on Monday, a Monsanto lawyer focused on who is most responsive to labeling requirements and who carries the biggest onus for current information. "A registered product that is marketed as labeled and approved by the [EPA] is not misbranded," Paul Clement told the justices. He went on to strongly argue that states would not be legally allowed under FIFRA to change the label on a crop protection product. One of the justices then pressed the issue that some companies have added cancer warnings to labels even when not directed by the EPA. "You as a registrant can't change the label legally. Full stop," the lawyer said, attempting to draw a distinction between a state's directive and what a manufacturer might be able to do. The focus heavily steered into the concept of "misbranding." The justices and the Monsanto lawyer also talked about the processes of incorporating new scientific findings into registrations, with the lawyer arguing that new science that undermines a product should not create retroactive penalties and that it requires a cancellation of registration, not a state-level relabeling. Another lawyer addressing the justices added, "States can do things that add additional penalties, as Mr. Clement said, but what they can't do is second-guess or undermine this [labeling] process." She noted that states making changes to the label would impacts the uniformity of the process. A justice, however, countered with the question: Based on new science, what if the changes to the label are right and they may supersede the scientific understanding at the time of federal registration? Like Clements, this second lawyer spoke of the avenue of suing to cancel the product as the appropriate manner in which concerns over new science should be rightly addressed. She also said that states are allowed to ban the use of a product, but that doesn't impact labeling or tort litigation. "What FIFRA doesn't allow is throwing the expressed pre-emption clause out the window and that states are perfectly fine having a free-for-all," she said. "Again, FIFRA is designed to guard against both sides of the risk." Ashley Conrad Keller, who represents Durnell, then spoke to justices, affirming the value of the jury's original finding in Missouri. He went on to challenge many of Clement's points, including referring to Clement as even having a "tortured reading" of a piece of the regulatory text. To read the entire article click here. Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
