[X] CLOSEMAIN MENU

[X] CLOSEIN THIS SECTION

photo

Require Pesticide Product Manufacturers To Provide Warning Labels of Potential Effects like Cancer

Resources and AssetsBills to Track 2026U.S. Supreme Court—Monsanto v. DurnellMass Mobilization: Require Warning Labels!Archive (2024-2025)

A coalition of local, state, and national organizations is mobilizing to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Monsanto v. Durnell on June 25, 2026, to ensure that those harmed by pesticides can sue product manufacturers for their failure to warn consumers of potential hazards on their product labels. The court’s decision effectively shields manufacturers from failure to warn lawsuits. This cannot stand.

This site supports a nationwide mobilization to educate on the importance of protection from failure-to-warn, a long-standing principle in jurisprudence and an important incentive for manufacturers of poisonous products to move to safe materials. Beyond the court decision, the site supports collective action to eliminate petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers that have been replaced by modern agricultural and land management practices that protect health, preserve biodiversity, and help to mitigate the climate crisis. As a coalition and network, we will:

  1. Support advocacy with information on pending legislation to reverse the Supreme Court decision and hold pesticide product manufacturers responsible for their failure-to-warn.
  2. Disseminate information to inform action, including the following:
    • up-to-date science on adverse effects of pesticides
    • campaigns to restrict pesticides at the local and state level
    • comments on regulatory reviews and federal and state proposals to restrict or expand pesticide use
    • efforts to put into policy and practice management approaches, including organic land management and agriculture as defined by the Organic Foods Product Act, that do not use toxic pesticides and fertilizers, and
    • targeted protection for those subject to a disproportionately elevated rate of adverse effects from pesticide exposure, including farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, children, people of color, and people with preexisting medical conditions.

MOBILIZE TO PASS LEGISLATION TO REVERSE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION

  1. Reach out to U.S. Representatives to support a legislative effort in Congress to reverse the decision in Monsanto v. Durnell.
    • send a message to your Congressperson through an action alert here
    • meet with your Congressperson in the district
    • speak to a Congressperson while at a community event
    • ask your mayor and local town, city, or county council member to reach out to the Congressperson on your behalf, and
    • ask others you know have influence (e.g., religious leaders, heads of civic organizations, health care professionals and associations, etc.).

This decision was made despite public outcries and critical votes in Congress and state legislatures. A statement, Stop Chemical Company Secrecy of Pesticide Product Hazards, decrying chemical company secrecy was released ahead of the opening arguments by over 200 grassroots, health, farm, farmworker, environmental, and consumer groups, socially responsible corporations, over 340 citizens from 46 states, and international partners, representing hundreds of thousands of constituents across the country. On the day of opening arguments, hundreds protested in front of the Supreme Court steps to express bipartisan opposition to corporate profits over the health of people and the planet. For more details please see the following Daily News, Bipartisan Group Tells Congress, Supreme Court, and States To Reject Monsanto Attack on Health and Safety.

Monsanto v. Durnell: An Analysis

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, issued a ruling on June 25 that prohibits, under current federal law, the right of those harmed by pesticides to sue manufacturers for their failure to warn consumers of potential hazards on their product labels. The decision effectively shields manufacturers from failure to warn lawsuits. See opinion in Monsanto v. Durnell.

Background

John Durnell helped manage his local park in St. Louis. For about 20 years he used the weed killer Roundup (glyphosate) and then developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma. He sued Monsanto and won a $1.25 million jury verdict because Monsanto failed to warn him on Roundup’s label that the product could cause cancer. The court found that that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (known as FIFRA) “preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim concerning a pesticide registered by [the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] 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.”

Holding Up EPA Pesticide Label as Conclusive Statement on Safety

The majority. [Justice Brett Kavanaugh] Opinion reads: “[B]efore registering a pesticide, EPA must evaluate a pesticide and its proposed label—and must determine that the proposed label includes all warnings necessary and adequate to protect human health and the environment, and is not false or misleading. EPA’s registration of the pesticide and approval of the pesticide’s label embodies the agency’s considered judgment that a pesticide is not misbranded—that is, that the label is not false or misleading and does not omit a necessary warning.” States that a pesticide product’s registration with EPA— EPA’s decision to allow the marketing of that product— is “prima facie” evidence of a complete and thorough review and determination of safety.

The dissent. [Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson and Justice Neil Gorsuch] Explains that EPA approved label, which majority refers to as prima facie evidence of safety is not “conclusive evidence.”

[Former EPA officials in amicus brief] “Under FIFRA and EPA's procedures, mere one­time acceptance of labeling confers no defense to liability for misbranding. To avoid such liability, the manufacturer must keep both EPA and the product labeling up to date with necessary safety information”. Note that reference to the manufacturers’ responsibility for accurate labeling is absent in the majority opinion, except for two passing references. The former officials continue, “Pesticides registered by EPA may carry risks that are not adequately addressed by the registration of the EPA-accepted labeling.”

Context for People Poisoned by Pesticides

People poisoned by a pesticides are not able, under the Supreme Court decision, to seek justice for not being warned of the potential harm because EPA registered the chemical, despite all the widely documented limitations of the registration and regulatory process. The limitations of the pesticide registration process can be found in the robust independent scientific literature, in U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) reports, in findings of the Office of Inspector General, in Congressional hearings, and more.

Pesticide registrants, or the chemical manufacturers, have tremendous influence in the pesticide registration process. They write the pesticide labels, test the chemicals for safety, negotiate deals that allow long phaseouts of chemicals known to harm children, allow for disproportionate risks to people of color, establish exposure assumptions in risk assessments, and too often hire former EPA scientists, lawyers, assistant administrators, and division directors. The pesticide manufacturer can move a label change through EPA quickly when information on adverse effects become known.

Policy Context

The Supreme Court’s reading of FIFRA calls out the weaknesses of the statute, the lack of protection, and the importance of the courts in holding chemical manufacturers accountable for notifying consumers and farmers about potential product hazards. There are still possible legal remedies for those harmed to pursue strict liability claims for design defects and negligence, but these strategies are challenging and expensive in our legal system. Labeling offers an opportunity for preventing harm and incentivizing manufacturers to producer safer products.

A 2005 Supreme Court case reversed, in a 7-2 vote, the lower court’s decision against Texas peanut farmers who had sued for crop damage under FIFRA.

Suing chemical companies is, in fact, pro-farmer. The Supreme Court majority in Bates v. Dow said, “The long history of tort litigation against manufacturers of poisonous substances adds force to the basic presumption against pre-emption. If Congress had intended to deprive injured parties of a long available form of compensation, it surely would have expressed that intent more clearly.” [and they end with, and this is key] “Moreover, this history emphasizes the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items.”

Support Legislation to Reverse Monsanto v. Durnell

H.R. 9528, the People Over Poison Act—introduced by Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Thomas Massie (R-KY)— is intended to restore the right of people to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable under state law when they fail to warn consumers about the risks of their products. The bill may be subject to clarifying amendments.

Resources & Assets

Related Press Releases

***

If you are interested in getting involved, please contact us at [email protected]. 

For additional resources and a glossary of terms, please see our backgrounder at https://bp-dc.org/supremecourt or this QR code. 

Audio of the oral arguments courtesy of https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-1068.