Key Takeaways
Court ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that federal pesticide labeling requirements take precedence over certain state-law failure-to-warn claims.
Focus of the case: The decision addressed the interaction between federal pesticide law and state failure-to-warn laws – not whether glyphosate causes cancer.
Why it matters: The ruling is expected to affect similar failure-to-warn lawsuits involving glyphosate products and other pesticides.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that federal pesticide labeling requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempt certain state-law failure-to-warn claims. This article summarizes the court's decision and explains its relationship to federal pesticide labeling requirements.
On June 25, the Supreme Court ruled, 7-2, that FIFRA expressly preempts a Missouri man’s claim in state court that Monsanto failed to warn him that his use of the company’s Roundup products could cause him to develop cancer. The case is Monsanto v. Durnell.
John Durnell sued Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) in Missouri state court in 2019. He claimed:
- He used Roundup products containing the active ingredient glyphosate for two decades, which he claimed caused him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a type of blood cancer.
- Monsanto failed to warn him that the use of Roundup products could cause cancer because the company did not put a cancer warning on its product labels.
Based on a state failure-to-warn law, a Missouri jury found in Durnell’s favor, ordering Monsanto to pay Durnell $1.25 million. Monsanto appealed the verdict, which was affirmed by the Missouri Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case.
The issue presented to the high court was not whether glyphosate caused Durnell’s cancer. Rather, the court examined whether FIFRA allows states to require pesticide label language that exceeds or is different than that required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at the federal level, and whether state juries can therefore hold pesticide registrants liable for a failure to warn users about health risks that the EPA has assessed do not exist.
The court’s majority concluded that, under FIFRA, states may not require pesticide labels to include language that exceeds or is different than the label language required by EPA.
Pesticide label language is highly regulated by the EPA under FIFRA.
Product registrants must include every word on their product labels that EPA requires of them. Likewise, they cannot add any language to their product labels that has not been approved by EPA.
The court ruled that the Missouri jury faulted Monsanto for not adding a cancer warning statement to its product labels, which the company was forbidden to add under federal law.
Thousands of plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against Monsanto/Bayer with claims similar to Durnell’s. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell is likely to end those lawsuits.
Additional Background
The EPA is the federal agency responsible for administering FIFRA. Before registering a pesticide active ingredient — and products containing it — for use in the marketplace, EPA conducts rigorous reviews of its risks to humans and the environment. By law, EPA must reevaluate pesticide active ingredients every 15 years after initial registration.
The EPA has repeatedly found that glyphosate is not likely to be a human carcinogen. Other international pesticide regulators, such as the European Food Safety Authority, the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority, have reached the same conclusion as EPA.
EPA’s risk assessments directly inform the directions for use and safety requirements that registrants must place on their pesticide product labels. For example, most pesticide labels require users to wear protective clothing and equipment to minimize their exposure to the product. By law, users of a pesticide product must follow its label directions. In this way, society can reap the benefits pesticides provide while mitigating the risks they pose.
For additional legal background, including the court's reasoning, dissenting opinions and potential future implications, read the National Agricultural Law Center's summary of the decision.
To learn more about pesticide labels, see the Nebraska Extension NebGuide G1955, “Understanding the Pesticide Label.”
Resources
- Monsanto v. Durnell, 609 U.S. ___ (2026). Retrieved July 2, 2026, from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/25.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2026, May 5). Glyphosate. Retrieved July 2, 2026, from https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate.
- Rollins, B. (2026, May 20). Failure to warn? A look at recent state and federal action on pesticide labeling [webinar]. The National Agricultural Law Center. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/webinars/pesticide-labeling/.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only, and the information it contains does not reflect the opinions of Nebraska Extension or its employees. If you need legal advice, you should consult a licensed attorney.
