In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen”. Following that finding, lawsuits alledging Monsanto had failed to include a cancer warning on Roundup labels have resulted in billions of dollar in damages. These lawsuits are being successfully litigated by plaintiffs despite the fact the EPA did not find any evidence that using glyphosate according to label instructions put users at risk for cancer. Accordingly, glyphosate labels do not carry a cancer warning.
The case Monsanto Co. v, Durnell originating in Missouri State court and alleging that Roudup usage for more than 20 years resulting in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Durnell’s claim was a failure-to-warn tort claim in that Monsanto should have included a cancer warning on the label. Durnell was awarded $1.25 million. The Durnell case was brought to the Supreme Court in April 2025 after Monsanto filed a petition arguing that Bayer argued that state Roundup herbicide lawsuits decided against the company for failing to carry a warning that it may cause cancer are unlawful under federal law because EPA has concluded the product doesn’t pose a risk when used according to its label. NAAA joined the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) in filing an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief that outlined the legal and detrimental production implications and impacts that would hit agricultural applicators nationwide should the court have decided that states have the right to overrule EPA’s risk assessment process and write their own label language.
The slew of lawsuits in state courts alleging failure to warn resulted in pesticide indsutry efforts to pass legislation that would establish national uniformity for pesticide labeling and make it clear EPA has the sole authority to write pesticide labels. It would prevent state and local governements from requiring or enforcing label requirements different from those approved by EPA.
Recent Updates
On April 30, the House of Representatives passed the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (Farm Bill). The orginal committee bill included language that aimed to amend FIFRA to mandate that only EPA can approve labels. Section 1020t would have prevented state and local governments from imposing or enforcing labeling requirements different from those approved by EPA. Unfortunately a last minute amendment by led by Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) which passed decisively by a vote 280-142 (with 73 Republicans joining Democrats) removed Section 1020t, eliminating labeling uniformity from the House Farm Bill. Because of the strong support for Luna’s amendment and the narrower margin for getting a Farm Bill passed in the Senate, pesticide labeling uniformity was not included in the Senate’s version.
In June a 7-2 ruling led by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court ruled in favor of Bayer, which owns Monsanto, holding that states cannot require more information on pesticide labels than is required by federal regulations. The case affirmed that FIFRA expressly preempts state-law-based failure-to-warn claims when the EPA has made a definitive determination on product safety. The ruling means that failure-to-warn claims in lawsuits pending against Monsanto and other pesticide registrants cannot proceed.It ensures aerial applicators can rely on having a uniform label, based on EPA’s thorough scientific review process, for each product they apply, no matter what state they’re working in. Had the court ruled otherwise, aircraft traveling out of state to assist another ag aviation operation during a pest outbreak could have found themselves applying under an unfamiliar set of restrictions. It is speculated that the decision will make passing pesticide labeling uniformity legislation which would establish EPA as the sole authority for writing labels unnecessary.