Monsanto Co. v. Durnell

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) contains a provision expressly preempting state “requirements for labeling or packaging” that are “in addition to or different from those required under” FIFRA. In Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC (2005), the Supreme Court explained that this provision does not preempt state requirements that are “equivalent to, and fully consistent with, FIFRA’s misbranding provisions.”

In this case, John Durnell, who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of exposure to the pesticide Roundup, sued Roundup’s manufacturer, Monsanto, alleging, among other things, that Monsanto failed to provide adequate warnings of Roundup’s risks.  A jury found for Mr. Durnell on the failure-to-warn claim, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. The state court compared FIFRA’s misbranding provisions and the state-law requirement underlying Mr. Durnell’s claim and determined that the state-law requirement is equivalent to FIFRA’s misbranding provisions. Accordingly, the court held that FIFRA’s preemption provision does not preempt Mr. Durnell’s claim.

The case is now before the United States Supreme Court on the question whether FIFRA preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning. We filed an amicus brief explaining that FIFRA neither expressly nor impliedly preempts Mr. Durnell’s claim.