FIFRA Preemption of State Pesticide Label Claims
Current understanding
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) governs pesticide registration and labeling through EPA, and includes an express preemption provision (7 U.S.C. § 136v(b)) barring states from imposing labeling or packaging requirements different from or in addition to those required under FIFRA. A key open question has been whether state-law failure-to-warn tort claims — particularly those seeking a cancer warning on glyphosate (Roundup) labels — are preempted when EPA has not required such a warning. In Monsanto v. Durnell, the U.S. Supreme Court held that FIFRA expressly preempts such state-law failure-to-warn claims, with significant implications for pesticide manufacturers, agricultural users, and tort liability nationwide.
Evidence log
- 2026-06-30 — Paraquat Prevention Act: cross-connection with paraquat-prevention-act: A federal paraquat restriction sits alongside ongoing debates over FIFRA preemption of state pesticide label claims. (novelty: 2)
- 2026-02-20 — No Immunity for Glyphosate Act: cross-connection with no-immunity-for-glyphosate-act: The bill targets the same manufacturer liability shield that FIFRA label-preemption doctrine has been used to establish; removing immunity would reopen state-law failure-to-warn claims currently constrained by FIFRA preemption jurisprudence. (novelty: 3)
- 2026-06-25 — Monsanto v. Durnell: cross-connection with persistent-organic-pollutants-pesticide-ban: Both involve FIFRA’s scope: preemption defines the limits of state-level pesticide regulation, while POPs implementation uses FIFRA to prohibit specific pesticides at the federal level. (novelty: 4)