Yes.
The ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell bars all sub-national entities from adding health warnings to pesticide labels different from the federal government’s.
Missouri farmer John Durnell sued Monsanto, the original creator of Roundup, after Durnell developed cancer, arguing the product label should have included the pesticide’s alleged cancer risk.
A jury awarded Durnell $1.25 million. The decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled against him in a 7-2 vote on grounds that states cannot impose labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” those required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
While the EPA and European Union stated Roundup is unlikely to be carcinogenic, the World Health Organization deemed it “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
The South Dakota Agri-Business Association supported the court’s decision, saying a consistent national standard helps agricultural retailers, applicators and farmers when selling, handling and applying crop protection products.
Sources
Supreme Court of the United States, Monsanto Co. v. Durnell
Revisor of Missouri, Strict liability for failure to warn
European Food Safety Authority, Glyphosate: EFSA updates toxicological profile
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Glyphosate
World Health Organization, IARC Monograph on Glyphosate
South Dakota Agri-Business Association, SDABA Statement
About fact briefs
Fact briefs are bite-sized, well-sourced explanations that offer clear "yes" or "no" answers to questions, confusions and unsupported claims circulating online. They rely on publicly available data and documents, often from the original source. Fact briefs are written and published by South Dakota News Watch as part of the Gigafact network. Submit a question for us to answer on the tipline.
South Dakota News Watch is an independent nonprofit. Read, subscribe for free and donate at sdnewswatch.org. Contact freelance reporter Emily DeCock: emily.decock@sdnewswatch.org.
