US agchem industry disappointed over herbicide ruling

28 April 2005 20:34 [Source: ICIS news]

WASHINGTON (CNI)--The US agricultural chemicals industry expressed disappointment Thursday with a Supreme Court ruling that will allow Texas peanut farmers to pursue legal claims in state court against a herbicide manufacturer for alleged crop damage.

In a 7-2 decision, the justices reversed lower court rulings that had barred the 29 farmers from filing a lawsuit against Dow AgroSciences for crop damage allegedly caused by the company’s Strongarm (diclosulam) herbicide.

Dow AgroSciences had successfully argued that the herbicide was registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under a federal labelling law that precludes state lawsuits.

But the high court disagreed, saying Dow AgroSciences’ assertion that the lawsuit relates to Strongarm’s label might not be correct since the claims could also involve questions of whether the product or manufacturing were defective.

"Petitioners' claims for defective design, defective manufacture, negligent testing and breach of express warranty are not pre-empted," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court in a majority opinion. He said those claims are based on rules that “plainly do not qualify as requirements for labelling or packaging.”

Stevens said: “If Congress had intended to deprive injured parties of a long available form of compensation, it surely would have expressed that intent more clearly.” He cited the “long history of tort litigation against manufacturers of poisonous substances.”

DuPont, Monsanto, Syngenta, and BASF filed briefs in the case, supporting Dow AgroScience’s contention that the 1947 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), pre-empted the lawsuit.

CropLife America, which represents US pesticide manufacturers, said it is “disappointed with the decision to modify part of the long-standing legal precedent at question in this case. However, we are encouraged the opinion does allow certain FIFRA pre-emption principles to remain intact and that the consistency of federal pesticide labelling requirements is upheld.”

The industry group said the court unanimously upheld the basic principle that FIFRA pre-empts any damages claims against a pesticide manufacturer that would impose a labelling requirement different from those required by EPA.

A federal court in Lubbock, Texas and the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals had dismissed the peanut farmers claims, ruling that FIFRA barred states from imposing labelling requirements on pesticides other than those approved by EPA.

CropLife America said the Supreme Court’s decision requires the lower courts to rehear the arguments, even though some justices suggested in opinions that the peanut farmers would fail again, unless they offer evidence that Dow AgroSciences erred in testing, design or manufacture.

Justice Steven Breyer, in a concurring opinion, stressed that EPA has the legal authority to promulgate rules and to determine the preemptive effect of those rules. He emphasised that a federal agency charged with administering a statute is “better able than are courts to determine” the extent of state tort liability in light of federal requirements.

“Looking ahead, “ said CropLife America, “we will further analyse this decision and consult with the states, federal regulators, Congress, our members and farm customers - all of whom appear to be impacted by this decision - to develop other policy directions that will respond to the court’s ruling.”

By: Glenn Hess
+1 713 525 2653

< previous article(VIDEO - ICIS news Asia Lunchtime Bulletin 29 October 2009)

For the latest chemical news, data and analysis that directly impacts your business sign up for a free trial to ICIS news - the breaking online news service for the global chemical industry.

Get the facts and analysis behind the headlines from our market leading weekly magazine: sign up to a free trial to ICIS Chemical Business.

Printer Friendly