Skip to main content

Post Durnell Argument Scenario Statements – Attributable to Monsanto

ⓘ This article is third-party content and does not represent the views of this site. We make no guarantees regarding its accuracy or completeness.

“We appreciate the Court’s careful consideration of FIFRA’s Uniformity language and how its federal preemption provision applies to state-based label warnings.

“We believe the U.S. Government and the Company made persuasive arguments that state-based warning claims ‘in addition to or different from’ warning labels approved by EPA under FIFRA, as in Durnell, are preempted, and this is necessary to avoid a patchwork of 50 different warning labels. Companies should not be punished under state law for complying with federal label requirements. The security and affordability of the nation’s food supply depend on farmers’ and manufacturers’ ability to rely on the science-based judgments of federal regulators. A favorable ruling by the Supreme Court would provide essential regulatory clarity for companies who seek to bring currently approved and new products to market, addressing their ability to serve U.S. farmers and consumers.”

Contacts

Media Contact:
Brian Leake
(314) 370.3285

Report this content

If you believe this article contains misleading, harmful, or spam content, please let us know.

Report this article

Recent Quotes

View More
Symbol Price Change (%)
AMZN  261.12
+0.00 (0.00%)
AAPL  267.61
+0.00 (0.00%)
AMD  334.63
+0.00 (0.00%)
BAC  52.63
+0.00 (0.00%)
GOOG  348.52
+0.00 (0.00%)
META  678.62
+0.00 (0.00%)
MSFT  424.82
+0.00 (0.00%)
NVDA  216.61
+0.00 (0.00%)
ORCL  172.96
+0.00 (0.00%)
TSLA  378.67
+0.00 (0.00%)
Stock Quote API & Stock News API supplied by www.cloudquote.io
Quotes delayed at least 20 minutes.
By accessing this page, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms Of Service.