In John Carson v. Monsanto Company District Court Docket No: 4:17-cv-00237-RSB-CLR, USCA11 Case: 21-10994 (11th Cir. May 8, 2024), the11th Circuit refused to rethink a February ruling that rejected claims that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) blocked plaintiff John Carson from arguing that the company should have warned customers about the health risks of using Roundup. The Court denied Monsanto’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc. In its earlier ruling, the 11th Circuit rejected Monsanto’s argument that the FIFRA blocked a state-level claim from John Carson that Monsanto had failed to warn customers about the health risks of using Roundup.
Monsanto, argued that Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) had already determined a warning was not necessary. But the 11th Circuit instead decided whether FIFRA preempts a state failure to-warn tort claim. Monsanto “contended” that FIFRA preempted Carson’s state-law claims because the EPA approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning and classified Roundup’s main ingredient as “not likely to be carcinogenic.” The district court agreed and found that FIFRA preempted Carson’s claims regarding Roundup’s packaging or labeling.
The 11th Circuit concluded that FIFRA does not expressly preempt Carson’s failure-to-warn claim. According to the Court, FIFRA’s preemption provision applies to only those state requirements that are “in addition to or different from” federal requirements. Because Georgia common law does not impose duties “in addition to or different from” FIFRA’s requirements, the Court held that Georgia common law is less demanding than the federal requirements. The Court continued, noting that Monsanto has not met its burden to show that, in an action that carried the force of law, the Agency would not have approved the warning label that Carson proposes. So, Monsanto has not established that it could not have complied with both state and FIFRA requirements. And as a result, Monsanto has failed to show that FIFRA impliedly preempts Carson’s state-law claim.