Monday, Jul 20, 2026
Does Monsanto v. Durnell bar Maine from adding differing health warnings to pesticide labels? | Fact brief
Monsanto v. Durnell bars all subnational entities, including Maine, from adding health warnings to pesticide labels different from the federal government’s.
Missouri farmer John Durnell held he’d developed cancer after using Monsanto’s Roundup and sued the company for not disclosing the pesticide’s alleged cancer risk on product labels.
Missouri’s “strict liability” doctrine holds companies legally accountable for failing to warn about the dangerous nature of a product. On those grounds, Durnell was awarded $1.25 million dollars by a Missouri jury.
The decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled against Durnell, holding in a 7-2 vote that under federal law, 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 agencies have stated Roundup is unlikely to be carcinogenic, the World Health Organization has deemed it “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
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
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 newsrooms in the Gigafact network.
See all fact briefsLatest Fact Briefs
Are all telephone poles in Maine are privately owned? | Fact brief
Wednesday, Jul 15, 2026
Have food prices doubled in the past 10 years? | Fact brief
Monday, Jul 13, 2026