Does a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision affect how Minnesota can warn of pesticide health dangers?

Yes.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto v. Durnell bars Minnesota and other states from labeling pesticides with health warnings different from the federal government’s.

The case, decided on June 25, stemmed from Missouri farmer John Durnell’s lawsuit claiming that he’d developed cancer after using Monsanto’s Roundup.

Missouri has a “strict liability” doctrine holding companies accountable for failing to warn about the dangerous nature of a product. On those grounds, a Missouri jury awarded $1.25 million to Durnell.

An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court resulted in justices ruling 7-2 against Durnell. States cannot impose warnings “in addition to or different from” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requirements, justices concluded.

Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, is widely used in Minnesota agriculture. Although the Minnesota Department of Health and EPA don’t consider it carcinogenic at likely exposure concentrations, the World Health Organization deems it “probably carcinogenic to humans.” 

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

MinnPost partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Sources

• Supreme Court of the United States Monsanto Co. v. Durnell
• Revisor of Missouri Strict liability for failure to warn
• Minnesota Department of Agriculture Glyphosate Herbicide
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Glyphosate
• World Health Organization IARC Monograph on Glyphosate

The post Does a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision affect how Minnesota can warn of pesticide health dangers? appeared first on MinnPost.