ICYMI: Ag Groups React To Latest Supreme Court Ruling on Roundup

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto v. Durnell is being hailed by agricultural organizations and crop protection stakeholders as a landmark victory for science-based regulation, while drawing criticism from environmental and pesticide-reform advocacy groups that argue the ruling limits legal recourse for individuals alleging harm from glyphosate exposure.

The ruling, issued June 25, held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims when the U.S. EPA has determined a particular warning is not required on a pesticide label. The decision is expected to significantly reduce thousands of pending lawsuits against Bayer, which acquired Monsanto and the Roundup brand in 2018.

In a statement following the decision, Bayer called the ruling “good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation.”

The company added that the decision “should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles” and is expected to result in the dismissal of current warning-based claims while barring future failure-to-warn lawsuits.

For much of agriculture, the decision represents more than a legal victory for Bayer. Industry organizations say it reinforces EPA’s authority as the nation’s pesticide regulator and preserves a uniform national framework for pesticide labeling.

Ag Retailers, Grower Groups Applaud Regulatory Certainty

CropLife America (CLA), which filed an amicus brief in the case, similarly emphasized the importance of consistent pesticide labels nationwide.

“We are pleased that today’s decision recognized the congressionally mandated role of the United States Environmental Protection Agency to approve consistent and science-based pesticide labels,” CLA said in a statement.

The organization noted that regulatory certainty is essential to continued investment in crop protection innovation, research, manufacturing, and product development. CLA also argued that a predictable federal framework supports U.S. agricultural competitiveness and helps ensure farmers maintain access to effective crop protection tools.

---

RELATED CONTENT: Is the Sun Setting on Roundup Herbicide? Why It’s Possible

---

The Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) was among the first agricultural organizations to praise the ruling.

“This decision protects the entire agricultural supply chain,” says Daren Coppock, ARA President and CEO. “When ag retailers and applicators comply fully with an EPA-approved label, they should not be punished for following the law.”

Coppock added that the ruling ensures pesticide safety decisions remain “grounded in science,” reflecting Congress’ intent when FIFRA was enacted.

Advocacy Groups Warn of Reduced Accountability

Not all reactions were positive.

Environmental, consumer, and agricultural reform advocacy organizations criticized the decision, arguing it weakens legal protections and limits accountability for pesticide manufacturers.

As You Sow, a shareholder advocacy organization focused on environmental and social responsibility, said the ruling “significantly limits” the ability of states and individuals to pursue failure-to-warn claims. Danielle Fugere, the group’s president and chief counsel, called state litigation “one of the last meaningful checks on pesticide safety in this country.”

Farm Action, an agricultural policy advocacy organization, expressed disappointment with the ruling. “This ruling weakens protections for farmers, farmworkers, and the public,” said Farm Action President Angela Huffman, arguing that farmers have alternatives beyond Bayer’s products and should not be used as justification for granting corporations legal immunity.

Beyond Pesticides also criticized the decision. Executive Director Jay Feldman called it “a tragic setback for public and environmental health,” arguing that litigation serves as an important mechanism for holding manufacturers accountable when health concerns emerge.

Several organizations associated with the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement likewise condemned the ruling, contending that it places excessive reliance on federal regulatory determinations and reduces avenues for legal challenges involving pesticide products.

For more about what comes next, continue reading at CropLife.com.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Leave a reader comment.