NAAA Files Court Brief with Supreme Court Defending Federal Pesticide Law and Bayer in Roundup Herbicide Case
The Supreme Court will hear arguments from Bayer next month, arguing that state Roundup herbicide lawsuits decided against the company for not carrying a warning that it may cause cancer are unlawful under federal law, where the EPA has concluded the product doesn’t pose a risk when used according to its label. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is an important tool to combat yield-strangling weeds and is widely deemed safe by experts. To support rigorous federal pesticide law, Bayer and the potential implications of this case if it is not reversed and allows juries to rule against EPA pesticide registration decisions, NAAA has joined the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) in filing an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court” brief, that provides legal and detrimental production implications and impacts that would hit agricultural applicators nationwide should the current decision stand.
The NAAA/ARA amicus (click here to see the full amicus) states that should the current Roundup decision stand:
“Each state would be free to require any number of additional or conflicting warnings on a pesticide’s label. And lay juries would ultimately have veto power over EPA regarding what warnings are required. For agricultural retailers and commercial pesticide applicators, these non-uniform warning theories have immediate economic consequences: they increase insurance premiums, limit the availability of affordable liability coverage, and raise the cost of providing lawful distribution and application services across state lines, even when products remain fully registered and approved by EPA.
These businesses operate across many states and depend on uniform, federally approved labels. Retailers must manage inventory, training, and point-of-sale communications under federal labeling constraints. Commercial applicators—ground and aerial—must schedule time-sensitive applications, maintain license compliance, and secure insurance coverage based on uniform label requirements. Non-uniform warning mandates—whether issued by state regulators or produced through tort verdicts—would fragment inventories, complicate training, and increase the risk of inadvertent noncompliance.
Retailers and applicators also depend on the availability of glyphosate and other safe and effective pesticides, which the decision below casts into doubt. If state law says that glyphosate products must carry carcinogen warnings and federal law says that they must not, it will become impossible to sell those products. The only option will be to discontinue them. That will harm the businesses that depend on a tool that EPA has found safe and effective for decades and across administrations. If will also harm the public, which benefits from the food security glyphosate products provide, among other benefits.
Congress wisely determined that the pesticide labeling requirements should be set uniformly, according to the extensive factfinding processes of the FIFRA, rather than piecemeal in the deliberation rooms of thousands of state courts. This Court should respect Congress’s expressed will and hold that Plaintiff’s claims are preempted.”
A ruling for the plaintiffs could expose pesticide manufacturers—that invest two decades and hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure the safety of their products before they go to market and are approved by EPA—additional billions in further liability.