Stop Chemical Company Secrecy of Pesticide Product Hazards!

***Please fill out the form linked here to sign on behalf of your organization in support of this statement below. The deadline for organizational endorsement is at 5 PM ET on Monday, March 30, 2026.

***
The chemical industry is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse decades of jurisprudence and shield manufacturers from liability associated with those who are harmed but not warned about pesticide adverse effects like cancer, neurological or immunological conditions, reproductive dysfunction, and other chronic illnesses. Briefs are due in the case by April 1, and oral arguments will be heard on April 27, with a decision anticipated in June.

The case before the Supreme Court, Monsanto v. Durnell, is preceded by thousands of successful lawsuits and settlements against Bayer/Monsanto for the company's failure to warn about long-term hazards on their product label. After years of litigation, Bayer/Monsanto has been held to account for the cancer-causing effects of its weed killer glyphosate (Roundup^TM). While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not recognize glyphosate to be cancer-causing, the International Agency for Research on Cancer finds it to be “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Because Monsanto sought to hide behind a weak regulatory review process, juries have issued verdicts that held the company responsible for failing to warn of the chemical product's potential adverse effects. The Durnell case resulted in a jury verdict (in 2023) of $1.25 million, while the total number of jury verdicts and settlements may amount to over $10 billion in liability if the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts and over a hundred thousand additional plaintiffs make the same claim.

The chemical industry is seeking liability immunity under federal pesticide law (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), questioning whether compliance with that law, in the Court's words, “preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim concerning a pesticide registered by EPA, where the agency has determined that a particular warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product label without EPA approval.” If successful, the Court would be overturning (reversing) its 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, 544 U.S. 431 (see analysis), which affirmed EPA's approved label as minimum protection, without releasing manufacturers of the responsibility to seek approval for a label that exceeds EPA's minimum. Pesticide manufacturers propose the text for their product labels and EPA ensures compliance with its minimum requirements, which does not preclude them from disclosing potential adverse effects they know or should have known about. EPA does not require a cancer warning (or other chronic effects typically) on pesticide product labels, even when the agency and the chemical manufacturer have identified a harm, including cancer, under EPA's risk assessment review that it deems “acceptable.”

The Court in the Bates case made the important point that the notion of liability “emphasizes the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items.” In an age of deregulation, the ability to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for warning of hazards is the keystone to minimum protection of public health. Accountability in the courts serves the interest of farmers, farmworkers, consumers, and those potentially exposed to pesticide products, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily.

We, the undersigned, believe that the Supreme Court must affirm the current law that holds chemical manufacturers liable when they do not warn consumers on the product label about potential hazards associated with the use of their products. Signatories to be added below.

***

Thank you for your support and engagement!