Menu

Trying to figure out how to properly apply chemicals on or near crops could become even more complicated after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a pesticide and weed killer manufacturer.

In late April, the court ruled 7-2 that Texas farmers could proceed with their lawsuit against Dow Agrosciences after a weed killer destroyed their peanut plants in 2000.

The farmers claimed that Dow Agrosciences, a division of Dow Chemical Co., failed to warn about possible risks of the newly approved herbicide, Strongarm. In 2001, Dow distributed the herbicide with a supplemental label that Strongarm should not be used in soils with a pH level of 7.2 or greater, which is typical in western Texas.

The Supreme Court reversed lower courts’ rulings that the farmers’ claims were pre-empted under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which says companies can sell pesticides only with labels approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Dow had argued that Congress barred lawsuits that would force companies to change their labels.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said farmers’ allegations of defective design, defective manufacture, negligent testing and breach of express warning were based on rules that "do no qualify as requirements for ‘labeling or packaging.’" The case was then sent back to an appeals court, which will decide if the farmers’ allegations are valid.

Rebeckah Freeman, director of American Farm Bureau Federation’s congressional relations, described the case as a double-edged sword for the agricultural industry. On one hand, manufacturers should be held responsible for their products, she said during a recent conference call about the case. But she noted that if the case results in manufacturers facing more lawsuits, the cost will likely be passed on to consumers.

"It’s not easy or cheap to make a new active ingredient or re-register products or add to the label of an existing product a new use or crop," Freeman said.

She said labels also could become more complicated as companies try to protect themselves from possible claims.

"There’s only so much information that you can put on a label and it be user friendly. Having more complicated and long labels could cause a lot of confusion and frustration to our members," Freeman said.

Having longer and more complicated labels could help shift the blame if something goes wrong from manufacturers to consumers, said Nan Still, OFBF’s director of agricultural law.

"If the label is really huge, many consumers are not going to take the time to read through it all. This is how companies will try to protect themselves – through labeling," Still said.