Pesticides can cause cancer. For that reason, they have long been the subject of state regulation. However, pesticide manufacturers like Monsanto Company have attempted to utilize the preemption doctrine to avoid liability for their carcinogenic products. After its arguments were unsuccessful in the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, Monsanto’s claim that a federal pesticide regulation preempted state action found success in the Third Circuit in Schaffner v Monsanto. The facts of all three cases were substantially the same: Plaintiffs with cancer brought state law failure-to-warn claims against Monsanto for failing to include a cancer warning on the label of its pesticide, Roundup. While the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits held that the state-law claims were not preempted, the Third Circuit disagreed. In opening this fissure between the circuits, the Third Circuit invited the Supreme Court to close it, noting that ‘the issue presented by this case, which is clearly of general interest, has yet to be decided by the highest court capable of resolving it – the United States Supreme Court’. If the Supreme Court grants certiorari, its holding could hamstring plaintiffs seeking redress for environmental and health-related harms … (more)
[Hannah Frater, Harvard Law Review Blog, 18 November 2024]
Leave a Reply