by Alexandra Dunn is president and CEO of CropLife America as it ran in Agri-Pulse
 |
|---|
| Alexandra Dunn |
Arlington, VA — 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.
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.
To read the entire article click here.
