Amicus Curiae Brief — Monsanto Company, Petitioner v. John L. Durnell

No. 24-1068

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

_____________

MONSANTO COMPANY,

v.

JOHN L. DURNELL,

_____________

Petitioner,

Respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari to the

Missouri Court of Appeals

_____________

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NATIONAL

AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATIONS

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

_____________

DAVID Y. CHUNG

Counsel of Record

LYNN T. PHAN

CROWELL & MORING LLP

1001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20004

(202) 624-2500

dchung@crowell.com

[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page(s)

INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ............................. 1

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF

ARGUMENT ...................................................... 4

ARGUMENT .............................................................. 7

I.

GLYPHOSATE’S NUMEROUS

BENEFITS DEMONSTRATE ITS

IMPORTANCE TO GROWERS AND U.S.

AGRICULTURE. ............................................... 7

II.

LOSS OF DOMESTIC GLYPHOSATE

PRODUCTION WOULD SEVERELY

IMPAIR U.S. AGRICULTURE. ...................... 13

III. ALLOWING PLAINTIFF-DRIVEN

POLICYMAKING TO OVERRIDE EPA’S

PESTICIDE REGISTRATION PROCESS

UNDER FIFRA WILL HAVE

CASCADING CONSEQUENCES FOR

U.S. AGRICULTURE. ..................................... 22

A. Unfettered Tort Litigation Will

Effectively Displace EPA’s Sciencebacked FIFRA Registration Process......... 22

B. State-Law Failure-to-Warn Litigation

Will Continue Expanding to Other

Pesticides and Threaten the

Availability of Crop Protection Tools

on which U.S. Agriculture Depends. ........ 24

CONCLUSION ......................................................... 27

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Nat’l Ass’n of Wheat Growers v. Bonta,

85 F.4th 1263 (9th Cir. 2023) ........................... 12

Other Authorities

2026 Crop Protection Market Outlook,

Farmers Bus. Network,

https://perma.cc/FGM4-7NNX (last

visited Feb. 24, 2026) ........................................ 21

Almond All. of Cal., Comments on

Glyphosate Proposed Interim

Registration Review Decision, EPA-HQOPP-2009-0361-14399 (Sep. 3, 2019),

https://perma.cc/VZH9-5FYE ........................... 16

Am. Crystal Sugar Co., Comments on Draft

Risk Assessments for the Registration

Review of Glyphosate,

EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-2164 (Apr. 23,

2018), https://perma.cc/Z2ED-SP39 ................. 12

Am. Sugarbeet Growers Ass'n, Comments

on Proposed Interim Registration Review

Decision, EPA-HQ-OPP-20009-036112387 (Aug. 28, 2019),

https://perma.cc/DN2H-NVS4

............................................................4, 10, 12, 13

iii

Andrew R. Kniss, Long-term Trends in the

Intensity and Relative Toxicity of

Herbicide Use, 8 Nature Commc'ns

28393866 (2017), https://perma.cc/SYR5SMGJ ................................................................. 12

Bayer, Managing the Roundup™ Litigation,

New Lawn & Garden (L&G)

Formulations for the U.S.,

https://perma.cc/R2JE-DT6E (last

visited Feb. 25, 2026) ........................................ 14

Bayer, Open Letter on Glyphosate:

American Agriculture at Risk,

https://perma.cc/MD8M-BDVN ........................ 14

Charlie Cahoon, Potential Short-Term

Economic Impact of Losing Glyphosate

in North Carolina, NC State Extension

(May 7, 2025), https://perma.cc/2KL9DMUE ......................................................... 16, 17

Chris Torres, Glyphosate Shortage Looms

Large, FarmProgress (Nov. 23, 2021),

https://perma.cc/DZM5-E94K ........................... 20

Consumer Notice, Paraquat Lawsuits,

https://perma.cc/DP8E-XTEB (last

modified Feb. 5, 2026) ...................................... 25

Cover Crop Termination, Cover Crop

Strategies (Oct. 5, 2021),

https://perma.cc/5GXJ-MFYG .......................... 11

iv

Daniel Kunkel, Associate Director, IR-4

Project Headquarters, Rutgers Univ.,

Comments on Proposed Interim

Registration Review Decision, EPA-HQOPP-2009-0361-2371 (May 10, 2019).

https://perma.cc/U5DR-WL7T ............................ 8

Edward D. Perry et al., Testing for

Complementarity: Glyphosate Tolerant

Soybeans and Conservation Tillage, 98

Am. J. Agric. Econ. 765 (2016),

https://perma.cc/583Q-7JMP .............................. 9

EPA, EPA Finalizes Glyphosate Mitigation

(Jan. 30, 2020), https://perma.cc/KY3RZECJ .................................................................... 5

EPA, Evaluating Pesticides for

Carcinogenic Potential,

https://perma.cc/X3CS-RXCD (last

updated Oct. 16, 2025) ...................................... 23

EPA, Glyphosate: Response to Comments,

Usage, and Benefits,

EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-2342 (Apr. 18,

2019), https://perma.cc/K7NP-6DN4

.............................................. 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16

EPA, Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk

Assessment (Mar. 2005),

https://perma.cc/86MQMG3W; ......................... 23

v

Exec. Order No. 14387: Promoting the

National Defense by Ensuring an

Adequate Supply of Elemental

Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based

Herbicides (Feb. 18, 2026) ...................... 6, 15, 16

Fred Whitford et al., Avoid Tank Mixing

Errors, Purdue Univ., Coll. of Agric.

(Sep. 2018), https://perma.cc/2LENY2FL .................................................................. 18

Gabe Allen, Herbicide Shortage Hamstrings

American Industrial Agriculture,

Discover Magazine (Mar. 29, 2022),

https://perma.cc/ETP2-TUBG .................... 19, 20

Gary Schnitkey & Laura Gentry, The

Hidden Costs of Extra Tillage Passes. Is

it worth it?, FARMDOC (Oct. 17, 2025),

https://perma.cc/U82G-YYZL ..................... 18, 19

Gary Schnitkey et al., Large Increase in

Machinery Costs Suggests Need to

Reconsider Machinery Purchase

Decisions, FARMDOC DAILY (15):189

(Oct. 14, 2025), https://perma.cc/47HBDG57 ................................................................. 19

Gil Gullickson, How to Cope with Herbicide

Shortages, Successful Farming (Feb. 25,

2022), https://perma.cc/2Y3W-E5TV ................ 17

vi

Graham Brookes, Glyphosate Use in

Agricultural Production: Its

Contribution to Global Carbon Dioxide

Emissions, 17(1) GM Crops & Food

2594217 (2026), https://perma.cc/Q4236WTE................................................................. 10

Helen Metcalfe et al., Trade-Offs Constrain

the Success of Glyphosate-Free Farming,

14 Sci. Rep. 8001 (Apr. 5, 2024),

https://perma.cc/DG2S-Z5KE ........................... 19

Herbicide Resistance Basics, Cornell Coll. of

Agric. & Life Scis,

https://perma.cc/HE4P-CTT8 (last

visited Feb. 25, 2026) ........................................ 20

The Hidden Cost of Tariffs: How Herbicide

Inflation Is Hitting California Fields,

AGC News (May 9, 2025),

https://perma.cc/LZ2Z-QMDJ ........................... 21

Iowa Farm Bureau Fed'n, Comments on

Proposed Interim Registration Review

Decision, EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-4759

(Aug. 19, 2019), https://perma.cc/674GEJVU ................................................................. 11

Jef Feeley, Popular Weed Killer Could

Cause Billions in Claims, FarmProgress

(Sep. 13, 2021), https://perma.cc/UG4RPXK8 ................................................................. 25

vii

Jillian M. Deines et al., Satellites Reveal a

Small Positive Yield Effect from

Conservation Tillage Across the US Corn

Belt, 14 Env't Res. Letters (2019),

https://perma.cc/UP3B-7HV4 ........................... 10

Joe Neal & Andrew Senesac, Are There

Alternatives to Glyphosate for Weed

Control in Landscapes?, NC State

Extension Publications,

https://perma.cc/P8C8-TFV4 (last

updated Feb. 13, 2024) ..................................... 16

Koen Dillen et al., Bred for Europe but

Grown in America: The Case of GM

Sugar Beet, 30(2) New Biotechnology

131 (2013), https://perma.cc/3H4K-Y6ED.......... 8

Macy Rosselle et al., The Effects of ClassAction Lawsuits on California

Glyphosate Usage, 57 J. Agric. &

Applied Econ. 466 (2025),

https://perma.cc/PH5J-PSYR ........................... 24

Malheur Cnty. Onion Growers Ass'n,

Comments on Draft Risk Assessments

for the Registration Review of

Glyphosate, EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-03612163 (Apr. 30, 2018),

https://perma.cc/K9SQ-53HG ........................... 16

Patrick Thomas, Farmers’ Favorite

Weedkiller Nears Its End, Bayer Warns,

Wall St. J. (Apr. 14, 2025) ................................ 14

viii

S.D. Corn Growers Ass'n, Comments on

Proposed Interim Registration Review

Decision, EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-036114392 (Sep. 3, 2019),

https://perma.cc/2B42-5CCH ............................ 11

Stephen O. Duke & Stephen B. Powles,

Glyphosate: A Once-In-A-Century

Herbicide, Pest Mgmt. Sci. (2008),

https://perma.cc/LQY6-TGSE ............................. 5

Tom Polansek, Focus: “Off the Charts”

Chemical Shortages Hit U.S. Farms,

Reuters (June 27, 2022) .................................... 20

U.S. Dep't of Health and Hum. Servs,

Glyphosate & Glyphosate Formulations,

Nat'l Toxicology Program,

https://perma.cc/N5ED-M78E (last

updated Apr. 23, 2025) ....................................... 7

Univ. of Cal. Agric. & Nat. Res., Statewide

Integrated Pest Management Program,

Corn Pest Management Guidelines,

Integrated Weed Management (July

2009), https://perma.cc/LPE5-MS3H ................. 4

USDA, Comments on Preliminary Risk

Assessments for the Registration Review

of Glyphosate,

EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-1618 (Apr. 25,

2018), https://perma.cc/BB4K-4FM4 ................ 11

ix

USDA., Econ. Rsch. Serv., Commodity Costs

and Returns: Cost-of-Production

Forecasts for Major U.S. Field Crops,

2025F-2026F (Dec. 18, 2025),

https://perma.cc/9U7P-46PH ............................ 21

USDA, NASS Highlights, 2021 Agricultural

Chemical Use Survey, Corn (May 2022),

https://perma.cc/2PWF-98AZ ............................. 7

USDA, NASS Highlights, 2021 Agricultural

Chemical Use Survey, Cotton (May

2022), https://perma.cc/78JP-86Y9..................... 7

USDA, NASS Highlights, 2023 Agricultural

Chemical Use Survey, Soybeans (May

2024), https://perma.cc/92MX-KNKH ................ 7

Weed Sci. Soc'y of Am., Weed Impacts on

Crop Yields, https://perma.cc/S78WGLM8 (last visited Feb. 24, 2026) ...................... 4

Ziwei Ye et al., Environmental and

Economic Concerns Surrounding

Restrictions on Glyphosate Use in Corn,

Proc. Nat'l Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118(18)

e2017470118 (2021),

https://perma.cc/A2A4-AZ8M ........................... 17

INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE 1

Amici Curiae are national trade associations that

represent millions of farmers, ranchers, and their

families throughout the U.S.

The American Farm Bureau Federation is the nation’s largest general farm organization, representing

farmers and ranches in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.

Its members rely on continued access to glyphosate

for their agricultural operations.

The American Soybean Association has 26 affiliated state associations and represents soybean farmers in 30 soybean-producing states. Glyphosate has

played a key role in helping soybean farmers manage

weeds that can rob crop yields and destroy livelihoods.

The American Sugarbeet Growers Association

represents family farmers across all 11 sugarbeet producing states, which collectively produce approximately 55% of all sugar produced in the U.S. Sugarbeet growers are completely dependent on glyphosate

and could not continue to effectively farm sugarbeets

without this essential crop-protection tool.

The Cherry Marketing Institute researches and

promotes United States tart cherry growers and

1 No part of this brief was authored in whole or in part by counsel

for any party, and no person or entity has made any monetary

contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief other

than amici curiae and their counsel.

2

Michigan sweet cherry growers. Its members rely on

glyphosate for best management practices.

The Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association’s

grower-shipper membership represents the majority

of fruit, vegetable, and other specialty crop production

in Florida. For more than four decades, its members

have relied on glyphosate as a critical, effective, and

economical weed management tool.

The International Fresh Produce Association is

the largest association serving over 3,000 member

companies that rely on glyphosate for its weed control

and conservation measures, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and sequestering carbon in the

soil.

The National Association of Wheat Growers is a

federation of 20 state associations representing the

needs of wheat producers nationwide. Its members

rely on glyphosate for effective weed control.

The National Corn Growers Association represents nearly 40,000 dues-paying corn growers and the

interests of more than 500,000 growers who contribute through corn checkoff programs in their states.

Glyphosate is the cornerstone for many corn growers’

comprehensive sustainable weed-management practices.

The National Cotton Council of America is the

central organization representing the interests of the

United States cotton industry, including farms and

businesses that employ approximately 125,000 workers. Cotton growers widely rely on glyphosate as a

critical component of successful crop production and

environmental stewardship.

3

National Sorghum Producers represents sorghum

producing states. Its members rely on glyphosate for

effective weed-control and a variety of conservation

measures, such as no-till or reduced-till farming systems.

The North American Blueberry Council represents thought leaders in the blueberry industry, including growers, distributors, and suppliers. Its members rely on glyphosate as an essential tool to protect

their crops from weeds and the other harmful effects.

Western Growers is a 99-year-old trade organization representing growers and handlers of fresh

fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts grown and sold from

the States of California, Arizona, Colorado, and New

Mexico. Glyphosate is “a crucial herbicidal compound

that provides is of economic importance to a wide variety of specialty fruit, nut, and vegetable crops.”

This case has serious implications for Amici’s

members who rely on pesticide products, including

glyphosate, to supply the growing global population

with food, feed, and fiber. For over 50 years, glyphosate has been a critical crop protection tool for the agricultural community due to its effective control

against various weed and grass species that cause billions of dollars of crop damage in the U.S. every year.

By finding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,

and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) does not preempt state

failure-to-warn claims, the Missouri Court of Appeals’

decision below, and the federal court of appeals’ decision on which it relied, threaten the availability of not

only glyphosate, but many other critical pesticides.

See Pet.App-12-13. Amici submit this brief to offer the

Court their unique perspective on glyphosate’s

4

importance to U.S. agriculture and the disruption

that would result if plaintiff-driven policymaking continues to displace the authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “Agency”) as the

principal regulator of pesticides.

INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

American farmers face many hurdles every growing season, including inclement weather, pests, unstable global markets, evolving trade policies, and

persistent weeds. Of all these, growers rate weed control as their primary crop production challenge. Am.

Sugarbeet Growers Ass’n, Comments on Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision (“ASGA Comments”) at 1, EPA-HQ-OPP-20009-0361-12387 (Aug.

28, 2019), https://perma.cc/DN2H-NVS4. Weeds compete with crops for light, nutrients, and water, particularly in the weeks following crop emergence. Univ.

of Cal. Agric. & Nat. Res., Statewide Integrated Pest

Management Program, Corn Pest Management

Guidelines, Integrated Weed Management (July

2009), https://perma.cc/LPE5-MS3H. Experts estimate that, if left uncontrolled, weeds would cause

tens of billions of dollars in economic losses to U.S.

farmers annually, reducing yields for sugar beet by

72%, soybean by 52%, and corn by 50%. Weed Sci.

Soc’y of Am., Weed Impacts on Crop Yields,

https://perma.cc/S78W-GLM8 (last visited Feb. 24,

2026). Effective weed control is therefore essential to

meeting growing global demand for food and agricultural products.

Glyphosate has proven to be one of the most revolutionary chemistries for weed control. Since it was

5

first registered in 1974, glyphosate has been approved

for use on more than 100 crops in the U.S.—including

corn, soybean, cotton, canola, and sugar beet. EPA,

EPA Finalizes Glyphosate Mitigation (Jan. 30, 2020),

https://perma.cc/KY3R-ZECJ. Weed scientists have

described it as a “once-in-a-century herbicide” given

its effectiveness, affordability, and low toxicity to the

environment and human health. Stephen O. Duke &

Stephen B. Powles, Glyphosate: A Once-In-A-Century

Herbicide,

Pest

Mgmt.

Sci.

(2008),

https://perma.cc/LQY6-TGSE.

Together with glyphosate-resistant crops, glyphosate revolutionized farming by providing a highly effective, broad-spectrum, and low-cost weed control solution. Glyphosate enabled growers to apply the herbicide “over-the-top” on genetically modified, glyphosate-resistant soybean, corn, cotton, and other crops

during the growing season (i.e., post-emergence) to

control weeds without harming the crop. Glyphosate

is also widely used on non-glyphosate-resistant crops

owing to its broad-spectrum efficacy against numerous weed and grass species, including for total vegetation control between crop rows and along field

edges, and pre-plant burndown of existing vegetation

before planting new seasonal crops. EPA, Glyphosate:

Response to Comments, Usage, and Benefits (“EPA

RTC”) at 19-20, EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-2342 (Apr.

18, 2019), https://perma.cc/K7NP-6DN4. Glyphosate

has also yielded significant environmental benefits by

enabling conservation tillage practices that reduce

soil erosion, fuel consumption, and greenhouse gas

emissions, while supporting expanded adoption of

cover cropping. Its widespread use across both

glyphosate-resistant and conventional cropping

6

systems makes glyphosate a vital tool for the stability

and resilience of the global food supply.

The benefits glyphosate provides to American

farmers are now at risk. Bayer, the sole domestic

manufacturer of glyphosate, has warned that mounting litigation costs threaten its continued participation in the U.S. market. If Bayer halts sales of glyphosate in the U.S., farmers would be left dependent on

foreign imports—primarily from China and India—

further exposing the domestic food supply to price volatility and supply disruptions. The federal government recently recognized this risk, designating

glyphosate as critical to national defense under the

Defense Production Act. Exec. Order No. 14387: Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate

Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and GlyphosateBased Herbicides (Feb. 18, 2026). Farmers who lose

access to affordable glyphosate would face sharply

higher weed-control costs, operational disruptions,

and reduced yields, with the heaviest burdens falling

on smaller operations.

At the heart of this case lies a conflict between

state tort law and federal pesticide regulation. FIFRA

entrusts EPA with the authority to evaluate pesticide

safety and determine what warnings product labels

must carry. But when juries impose liability and enormous damage awards based on the failure to include

warnings that go beyond—and even conflict with—

what EPA has required on pesticide labels, they effectively override the Agency’s statutory authority and

expert scientific judgments. This dynamic is inconsistent with FIFRA and threatens to destabilize the

regulatory framework on which growers rely for longterm planning, and for the availability of affordable

7

and effective crop protection tools. Manufacturers facing open-ended litigation exposure may withdraw

widely used pesticide products from the U.S. market

even where EPA has found no unreasonable risk, and

they may scale back investment and innovation in

new chemistries. The resulting impacts on agriculture and the food supply would be devastating.

This Court should reverse the decision below and

reaffirm that FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn

claims.

ARGUMENT

I. GLYPHOSATE’S NUMEROUS BENEFITS

DEMONSTRATE ITS IMPORTANCE TO

GROWERS AND U.S. AGRICULTURE.

Since EPA first registered it in 1974, glyphosate

has become the most widely used and studied synthetic herbicide in the world. See U.S. Dep’t of Health

and Hum. Servs, Glyphosate & Glyphosate Formulations,

Nat’l

Toxicology

Program,

https://perma.cc/N5ED-M78E (last updated Apr. 23,

2025). According to the most recent agricultural

chemical use surveys from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), 93% of soybean acres were

treated with glyphosate in 2023, USDA, NASS Highlights, 2023 Agricultural Chemical Use Survey, Soybeans (May 2024), https://perma.cc/92MX-KNKH,

and 83% of cotton and 41% of corn acres were treated

with glyphosate in 2021, USDA, NASS Highlights,

2021 Agricultural Chemical Use Survey, Cotton (May

2022), https://perma.cc/78JP-86Y9; USDA, NASS

Highlights, 2021 Agricultural Chemical Use Survey,

Corn (May 2022), https://perma.cc/2PWF-98AZ. After

8

glyphosate-resistant sugar beets became commercially available in 2007, growers rapidly adopted the

weed control system and within two years, 95% of

sugar beets produced in the U.S. were from glyphosate-resistant seed varieties. Koen Dillen et al., Bred

for Europe but Grown in America: The Case of GM

Sugar Beet, 30(2) New Biotechnology 131 (2013),

https://perma.cc/3H4K-Y6ED. Glyphosate’s availability has produced significant benefits for farmers, consumers, and the environment, and its ubiquity reflects the broad recognition that it is effective, economical, and environmentally benign compared to

available alternatives.

Glyphosate’s widespread adoption is attributable

to several key advantages. It “has the one [sic] of the

largest pest spectrums of all herbicides and is registered on more use sites than any other herbicide.”

EPA RTC, supra, at 6. It is also the leading herbicide

used to control invasive weed species in the U.S., including in agricultural and wildland settings. Id. at

25. Glyphosate is particularly important to combat invasive weeds in aquatic systems because, unlike alternative systemic aquatic herbicides, it does not have

irrigation water use restrictions. Id. at 24. Glyphosate

also serves an important role in protecting various

fruits and vegetables, often referred to as “specialty

crops.” It is the leading herbicide in orchard floor

management because of its “broad spectrum, versatility of use, and cost.” Id. at 20. In terms of total area

treated, it is the leading herbicide in tree nuts, including almonds and citrus. Id. at 20-21. For many specialty crops that rely on glyphosate for weed control,

“there are essentially no other [] registered” products

available. Daniel Kunkel, Associate Director, IR-4

Project Headquarters, Rutgers Univ., Comments on

9

Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision, EPAHQ-OPP-2009-0361-2371

(May

10,

2019).

https://perma.cc/U5DR-WL7T.

In addition to its broad efficacy, glyphosate is invaluable to U.S. growers because of its cost-effectiveness, with per-acre application costs below other alternatives. EPA RTC, supra, at 18. Most alternative

herbicides have a narrower control spectrum or lower

efficacy and thus require higher application rates or

multiple active ingredients to achieve comparable

weed control, resulting in significantly greater peracre costs. See id. Alternative herbicides also often

have more stringent use restrictions that limit the

timing and method of their application. Id. Thus,

glyphosate provides operational efficiency benefits to

growers by enabling flexible application timing and

eliminating the narrow, early-season or pre-emergence application windows that many alternative

herbicides require, which in turn reduces the risk of

costly mistimed applications and the need for repeated field passes.

Glyphosate also delivers significant environmental benefits, most notably by enabling farmers to

adopt conservation tillage practices and plant cover

crops, both of which are central to conservation and

regenerative agriculture. By providing effective,

broad-spectrum weed control, glyphosate has facilitated the expansion of conservation tillage (i.e., reduced or no tillage) across the U.S. Edward D. Perry

et al., Testing for Complementarity: Glyphosate Tolerant Soybeans and Conservation Tillage, 98 Am. J.

Agric. Econ. 765 (2016), https://perma.cc/583Q-7JMP.

Before glyphosate, growers relied on conventional tillage—including plowing—to control weeds and

10

prepare fields for seeding. Conventional tillage has

significant adverse effects on the environment and agriculture because it accelerates soil erosion from wind

and water, releases significant amounts of stored carbon, and reduces soil moisture and overall soil health.

ASGA Comments, supra, at 3. Conventional tillage

practices also require farmers to make multiple

passes over fields with heavy machinery, which not

only result in significant fuel and labor costs, but also

cause soil compaction, further degrading soil conditions. See id.

By contrast, conservation tillage minimizes environmental impacts and operational costs, while increasing crop yields. See id.; Jillian M. Deines et al.,

Satellites Reveal a Small Positive Yield Effect from

Conservation Tillage Across the US Corn Belt, 14

Env’t Res. Letters (2019), https://perma.cc/UP3B7HV4. In the U.S. alone, conservation tillage attributable to glyphosate has resulted in a net annual reduction of nearly 10.5 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide

equivalent emissions compared to conventional plowing. Graham Brookes, Glyphosate Use in Agricultural

Production: Its Contribution to Global Carbon Dioxide

Emissions, 17(1) GM Crops & Food 2594217 tbls. 10

& 11 (2026), https://perma.cc/Q423-6WTE.

Glyphosate is also essential to modern, large-scale

cover cropping. In many no-till systems, farmers

plant cover crops (i.e., legumes, grasses, or brassicas)

during fallow periods to improve soil health, manage

erosion, suppress weeds, and enhance nutrient cycling. Glyphosate is a particularly effective herbicide

for terminating grass cover crops and is often recommended for tank-mixing with other active ingredients

for mixed-species and legume cover crops. Sarah Hill,

11

Glyphosate Still Most Effective Herbicide for Cover

Crop Termination, Cover Crop Strategies (Oct. 5,

2021), https://perma.cc/5GXJ-MFYG. Its low residual

soil activity allows growers to plant cash crops immediately after application, further supporting its widespread use as a cover crop burn-down tool. EPA RTC,

supra, at 28. Indeed, the use of glyphosate nearly doubled the acreage of cover crops in South Dakota from

2012 to 2017, S.D. Corn Growers Ass’n, Comments on

Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision at 1-2,

EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-14392 (Sep. 3, 2019),

https://perma.cc/2B42-5CCH, and resulted in a “more

than 20-fold increase” in the acres planted to cover

crops in Iowa from 2011 to 2019, Iowa Farm Bureau

Fed’n, Comments on Proposed Interim Registration

Review

Decision,

EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-4759

(Aug. 19, 2019), https://perma.cc/674G-EJVU.

Glyphosate’s environmental benefits extend beyond its facilitation of the aforementioned conservation practices; it also has a safer environmental profile compared to available alternatives. Glyphosate

has long been considered a relatively safe compound

in the environment because it is nonvolatile and stable in the air and is virtually biologically inactive in

soil where it is rapidly inactivated by adsorption and

degradation. See USDA, Comments on Preliminary

Risk Assessments for the Registration Review of

Glyphosate at 6, EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-1618 (Apr.

25, 2018), https://perma.cc/BB4K-4FM4. In addition

to its relatively short half-life, its strong binding to

soil components reduces its potential for leaching or

off-target impacts. Id.; see also EPA RTC, supra, at

25.

12

EPA is among numerous regulatory bodies worldwide that have determined that glyphosate, when

used according to label requirements, is safe for humans. Glyphosate has been approved for use in over

130 countries, JA.41, and although the International

Agency for Research on Cancer has classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic,” the European Union,

Canada, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea have

all joined EPA in concluding that glyphosate is not

likely to be carcinogenic to humans. Nat’l Ass’n of

Wheat Growers v. Bonta, 85 F.4th 1263, 1270 (9th Cir.

2023). Moreover, glyphosate has been determined to

have lower acute and chronic toxicity to mammals

than the herbicides most commonly used in corn, soybean, and cotton. Andrew R. Kniss, Long-term Trends

in the Intensity and Relative Toxicity of Herbicide Use,

8

Nature

Commc’ns

28393866

(2017),

https://perma.cc/SYR5-SMGJ. Accordingly, substituting alternative herbicides for glyphosate would not

only diminish these environmental and safety advantages, but also increase health risks for pesticide

applicators and the communities in which they operate.

Relatedly, glyphosate has enabled growers to use

fewer and less toxic herbicides by simplifying their

weed control strategies. Before glyphosate, growers

used a combination of numerous herbicides selective

to certain weed species. ASGA Comments, supra, at

1. These herbicide cocktails not only had greater environmental impacts but were also complicated and

expensive for growers to implement. See Am. Crystal

Sugar Co., Comments on Draft Risk Assessments for

the Registration Review of Glyphosate at 2, EPA-HQOPP-2009-0361-2164

(Apr.

23,

2018),

https://perma.cc/Z2ED-SP39. For example, some

13

growers would combat weeds by using a combination

of up to 13 herbicides, all requiring complex application methods and timing. ASGA Comments, supra, at

1. With the introduction of glyphosate-resistant crops,

glyphosate could be used alongside a smaller number

of complementary herbicides. This resulted in aggregate reductions in both the volume of herbicides applied and the associated environmental impacts compared to pre-glyphosate herbicide programs.

In short, glyphosate has been indispensable to

U.S. crop production because its broad-spectrum

weed control reduces yield losses and improves operational efficiency across major row crops. At the same

time, its compatibility with conservation tillage enables growers to conduct fewer field passes, thereby reducing fuel and water use, soil disturbance, erosion,

and greenhouse-gas emissions across millions of

acres. EPA RTC, supra, at 6–7. These agronomic and

environmental benefits have strengthened farm

productivity and resource stewardship while reducing

inputs per acre.

II. LOSS OF DOMESTIC GLYPHOSATE PRODUCTION WOULD SEVERELY IMPAIR U.S.

AGRICULTURE.

In recent years, U.S. farmers have faced significant price and supply volatility related to pesticide

imports, driven primarily by increased global demand, trade policy, and logistical challenges (e.g., congestion at ports and rail lines, labor shortages, etc.).

These disruptions hinder growers’ ability to produce

a reliable supply of food and agricultural products and

would be exacerbated if Bayer were forced to cease

14

selling its glyphosate products in the U.S. due to the

mounting cost of tort litigation.

Glyphosate’s supply-chain vulnerabilities are compounded by the fragility of domestic production.

Bayer is the only domestic manufacturer of glyphosate, Bayer, Open Letter on Glyphosate: American Agriculture at Risk, https://perma.cc/MD8M-BDVN, and

produces approximately 40% of the world’s glyphosate, Patrick Thomas, Farmers’ Favorite Weedkiller

Nears Its End, Bayer Warns, Wall St. J. (Apr. 14,

2025), https://perma.cc/PF82-P8UT. Yet it has

warned that the rising costs of tort litigation could

soon force the company to stop selling Roundup in the

U.S. altogether. Id. Indeed, Bayer has already shrunk

its portfolio of U.S. glyphosate products to mitigate

the mounting cost of tort litigation. In 2023, Bayer

completed its phase-out out glyphosate from all U.S.

consumer and residential Roundup products. Bayer,

Managing the Roundup™ Litigation, New Lawn &

Garden (L&G) Formulations for the U.S.,

https://perma.cc/R2JE-DT6E (last visited Feb. 25,

2026). If Bayer were to also cease selling glyphosate

for agricultural use in the U.S., growers would become

dependent on imported glyphosate, primarily from

China and India. This would in turn expose U.S.

farmers and the agricultural industry to greater supply-chain disruptions and quality control issues. Complete reliance on imported glyphosate-based products

would lead to higher, more volatile prices and product

shortages, which in turn would reduce crop yield, increase costs for farmers and consumers, and cause adverse impacts to the environment.

The current Administration has recognized that

any “[f]uture reduction or the cessation of domestic

15

production of . . . glyphosate-based herbicides would

gravely threaten American national security by . . .

having a debilitating impact on domestic agricultural

capabilities.” Exec. Order No. 14387, § 1. Accordingly,

on February 18, 2026, President Trump invoked the

Defense Product Action to designate glyphosatebased herbicides as critical to national defense and ordered the Secretary of Agriculture to secure domestic

supplies. Id. The Executive Order states that

“[e]nsuring an adequate supply of . . . glyphosatebased herbicides is [] crucial to the national security

and defense, including food-supply security,” reinforcing that the continued domestic availability of glyphosate is a matter of paramount national importance.

Id.

Against this backdrop, the consequences of losing

affordable and reliable access to glyphosate are stark:

growers would be forced to rely on alternative herbicides, return to tillage agriculture, or adopt some combination of the two. EPA RTC, supra, at 18. Under

any of these scenarios, farmers would incur increased

production and operational costs. Notably, growers

must determine which seed traits to plant years in advance based on long-term considerations such as seed

purchasing contracts, crop rotation strategies, and

the expected availability of crop protection technologies. Erratic prices and an unstable supply of glyphosate herbicides would severely disrupt growers’ pest

management plans, particularly because growers

cannot pivot mid-season or retroactively alter planting decisions to accommodate a different seed variety

or cropping system.

As this Administration has aptly recognized,

“[t]here is no direct one-for-one chemical alternative

16

to glyphosate-based herbicides.” Exec. Order No.

14387, § 1. Available glyphosate alternatives fall

short in one or more critical respects: they offer less

effective and narrower-spectrum weed control, impose more complex application requirements, or carry

significantly higher costs—and in many cases, all of

the above. EPA RTC, supra, at 18; see also Joe Neal &

Andrew Senesac, Are There Alternatives to Glyphosate

for Weed Control in Landscapes?, NC State Extension

Publications, https://perma.cc/P8C8-TFV4 (last updated Feb. 13, 2024).

Despite price fluctuations in recent years, glyphosate remains one of the most affordable broad-spectrum herbicides. If glyphosate were to become unavailable, growers would incur significantly higher operational costs due to the higher cost of alternative

herbicides, along with the need to apply multiple

herbicide active ingredients or use higher application

rates to achieve comparable control. See e.g., Malheur

Cnty. Onion Growers Ass’n, Comments on Draft Risk

Assessments for the Registration Review of Glyphosate, EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-2163 (Apr. 30, 2018),

https://perma.cc/K9SQ-53HG; Almond All. of Cal.,

Comments on Glyphosate Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision at 1, EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-036114399 (Sep. 3, 2019), https://perma.cc/VZH9-5FYE.

For example, extension weed scientists at North

Carolina State University estimated that growers in

the state would experience a cost increase of 62% for

burndown programs, 73% for corn, 24% for cotton,

and 38% for soybeans. Charlie Cahoon, Potential

Short-Term Economic Impact of Losing Glyphosate in

North Carolina, NC State Extension (May 7, 2025),

https://perma.cc/2KL9-DMUE. In most scenarios,

17

growers would need to adopt two to four additional

active ingredients for pre-emergence and post-emergence application. Id. Corn growers would face the

largest cost increase due to limited alternatives for

grass control and the resulting need to adopt a preemergence program with three or four active ingredients. Id. Another study predicting the impact of a 10%

glyphosate tax determined that “[g]iven current availabilities in the corn-herbicide market, corn producers

will be restricted to more expensive alternatives, and

the increased production cost [will be] transmitted in

part to consumers, resulting in a small but economically significant drop in corn quantity at the market

equilibrium.” Ziwei Ye et al., Environmental and Economic Concerns Surrounding Restrictions on Glyphosate Use in Corn, Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118(18)

e2017470118, at 6 (2021), https://perma.cc/A2A4AZ8M.

Growers seeking to use alternative herbicides will

encounter steep learning curves because alternative

herbicides have narrower use windows and more complex application requirements that demand strong

knowledge of the specific weed species present in their

fields. For example, when using acetolactate synthase

(ALS) inhibitor herbicides on corn, growers must apply the herbicide during the appropriate growth

stages or risk significant crop injury. Gil Gullickson,

How to Cope with Herbicide Shortages, Successful

Farming (Feb. 25, 2022), https://perma.cc/2Y3WE5TV. Other alternatives are primarily contact herbicides that lack glyphosate’s broad-spectrum, systemic root-kill effect and thus often require tank mixing for comparable levels of weed control. Neal &

Senesac, supra. Tank-mixing is often complex, requiring growers to adhere to time-sensitive and

18

prescribed orders of addition to prevent negative reactions, separation, or foaming. Fred Whitford et al.,

Avoid Tank Mixing Errors, Purdue Univ., Coll. of

Agric. (Sep. 2018), https://perma.cc/2LEN-Y2FL. The

learning curve associated with adopting substitute

herbicides translates directly into increased weed

scouting time and greater risk of application errors.

The most significant operational consequence of

relying on glyphosate alternatives is inadequate weed

control. Because alternative herbicides target a narrower spectrum of weed and grass species, they require more complex, targeted management strategies

such as direct application to achieve glyphosate’s efficacy. Until new weed control methods are perfected,

growers—particularly those operating glyphosate-resistant cropping systems—will face increased weed

competition and reduced crop yields, threatening not

only their livelihoods, but also their ability to provide

a reliable and affordable supply of food and agricultural products.

In addition to—or as an alternative to—using different herbicide chemistries, the loss of reliable access

to glyphosate would compel growers to adopt tillageintensive agricultural practices that invariably increase production costs. A study from the University

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign shows that the cost

of tillage-intensive practices in 2025 ranged from

$19.50 to $54.40 for a single tillage pass on one acre,

including overhead machinery, labor, and fuel costs.

Gary Schnitkey & Laura Gentry, The Hidden Costs of

Extra Tillage Passes. Is it worth it?, FARMDOC 4

(Oct. 17, 2025), https://perma.cc/U82G-YYZL. This

represents an approximate 55% increase in the cost of

tillage agriculture since 2019 and is driven in large

19

part by rising agricultural machinery costs. Id.; see

also Gary Schnitkey et al., Large Increase in Machinery Costs Suggests Need to Reconsider Machinery Purchase Decisions, FARMDOC DAILY (15):189 (Oct. 14,

2025), https://perma.cc/47HB-DG57.

Importantly, conventional tillage requires growers

to make several passes over the field to effectively

control weeds, thereby rendering this method of weed

control economically inefficient or, in many cases, cost

prohibitive. In a study modeling the impacts of discontinuing glyphosate and substituting cultural control methods such as tillage in winter wheat production, the results showed that weed-control benefits

“rarely translated into increased farm profits due to

the associated higher costs.” Helen Metcalfe et al.,

Trade-Offs Constrain the Success of Glyphosate-Free

Farming, 14 Sci. Rep. 8001, at 9 (Apr. 5, 2024),

https://perma.cc/DG2S-Z5KE. Moreover, the study’s

authors concluded that concerns over tillage’s adverse

impacts on soil health would likely prevent farmers

from adopting tillage as a primary method of weed

control. Id.

There is no need to speculate about the severe consequences that would result from a complete halt in

domestic glyphosate production. During the 20212022 growing season, pandemic-related supply chain

issues caused a shortage of several herbicides, including glyphosate, which in turn caused prices to spike

by nearly four-fold. Gabe Allen, Herbicide Shortage

Hamstrings American Industrial Agriculture, Dis(Mar.

29,

2022),

cover

Magazine

https://perma.cc/ETP2-TUBG. The glyphosate shortage was exacerbated when Bayer’s manufacturing

plant in Luling, LA—the largest glyphosate

20

manufacturing facility in the U.S.—ceased operations

for over a month due to Hurricane Ida. Id. Like other

significant supply chain issues, these disruptions had

ripple effects for several years. A university extension

weed specialist correctly predicted that the next couple of years would see “a lot more weedy fields” and

cautioned farmers to prepare to “accept about 70%

weed control instead of 90% control for some weeds,”

along with consequential reduction in crop yield.

Chris Torres, Glyphosate Shortage Looms Large,

FarmProgress

(Nov.

23,

2021),

https://perma.cc/DZM5-E94K.

The downstream effects of these shortages on farm

operations were immediate and severe. Growers were

forced to convert more fields to crops that cost less to

grow or allow for more conventional weed control

methods—but are not nearly as profitable—or scale

back planted acreage. Id. For example, a Tennessee

farmer was forced to abandon his plans to plant soybeans on 100 acres after waiting months to receive his

herbicide order. Tom Polansek, Focus: “Off the

Charts” Chemical Shortages Hit U.S. Farms, Reuters

(June 27, 2022), https://perma.cc/827G-A672. When

an Indiana farmer did not receive his usual 250-gallon containers, he spent seven hours emptying 2.5 gallons into a larger vat to spray his crops. Id. In some

cases, growers reduced their application of glyphosate, id., which experts have warned can lead to an

increase in herbicide-resistant weeds in subsequent

years. Herbicide Resistance Basics, Cornell Coll. of

Agric. & Life Scis, https://perma.cc/HE4P-CTT8 (last

visited Feb. 25, 2026).

More recently, after the imposition of tariffs

against Chinese-imported goods in early 2025,

21

growers in California’s Central Valley reported tight

supplies and delivery delays in generic glyphosate formulations. The Hidden Cost of Tariffs: How Herbicide

Inflation Is Hitting California Fields, AGC News

(May 9, 2025), https://perma.cc/LZ2Z-QMDJ. This volatility will only worsen in the coming years if U.S. agriculture becomes more reliant on imported glyphosate products that are vulnerable to global supplychain disruptions. The Farmers Business Network

anticipated that in 2026, glyphosate prices are likely

to increase while supplies will decrease due in large

part to U.S.-China trade relations and global market

turbulence. 2026 Crop Protection Market Outlook,

Farmers Bus. Network, https://perma.cc/FGM47NNX (last visited Feb. 24, 2026).

Critically, these supply-chain and cost pressures

do not affect all farm operations equally. The loss of

reliable and affordable access to glyphosate would impose disproportionate economic burdens on small and

mid-size operations. Unlike larger-scale agricultural

operations, which benefit from economies of scale, diversified revenue streams, and greater access to capital, small and mid-size farms typically operate on narrow profit margins. For these operations, crop protection costs already represent a substantial share of operating expenses—ranging from approximately 11 to

24 percent depending on the crop. USDA., Econ. Rsch.

Serv., Commodity Costs and Returns: Cost-of-Production Forecasts for Major U.S. Field Crops, 2025F2026F (Dec. 18, 2025), https://perma.cc/9U7P-46PH.

Alternative herbicide programs would be more costly,

supra at 16, and a transition to mechanical tillage

would add expenses in the form of increased fuel consumption, additional labor, and capital investment in

equipment that many smaller operations do not

22

currently own or lease, supra at 18. The cumulative

effect of these dynamics is that the financial burden

of glyphosate’s removal would fall most heavily on

smaller operations—the segment of the agricultural

sector least equipped to absorb it.

III. ALLOWING PLAINTIFF-DRIVEN POLICYMAKING TO OVERRIDE EPA’S PESTICIDE REGISTRATION PROCESS UNDER

FIFRA WILL HAVE CASCADING CONSEQUENCES FOR U.S. AGRICULTURE.

A. Unfettered Tort Litigation Will Effectively Displace EPA’s Science-backed

FIFRA Registration Process.

Under FIFRA, EPA undertakes a comprehensive

regulatory process to thoroughly assess the safety, efficacy, risks, and benefits of registering a pesticide.

That process results in product-specific labels that

provide both the floor and ceiling as to what warnings

can be made to consumers. Accordingly, state-law failure-to-warn actions challenging the sufficiency of pesticide labels are inconsistent with FIFRA and undermine EPA’s statutorily prescribed authority as the expert federal agency responsible for assessing and regulating pesticide products.

EPA possesses the scientific and technical expertise necessary to evaluate human health hazards and

to develop pesticide label warnings that are anchored

in sound science and protective of public health. Ad

hoc determinations in product liability trials, however, allow lay judges and juries to second-guess the

safety and carcinogenic determinations that EPA has

made, often on behalf of a single plaintiff or group of

23

plaintiffs. Tort litigation effectively substitutes jury

verdicts that are shaped by litigation dynamics for

EPA’s science-based risk assessments informed by

decades of toxicological data. This undermines EPA’s

more than 40 years of experience in assessing carcinogenicity pursuant to the Agency’s standardized scientific guidelines.

State tort litigation, which can result in staggering damages awards, should not displace EPA’s regulatory process for classifying a pesticide’s carcinogenic

potential and EPA’s determination that a particular

pesticide is safe, effective, and beneficial. Pursuant to

EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, the Agency uses a weight-of-evidence approach

combining human, animal, and mechanistic data to

classify cancer risks and guide regulatory actions. See

EPA, Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment

(Mar. 2005), https://perma.cc/86MQMG3W; EPA,

Evaluating Pesticides for Carcinogenic Potential,

https://perma.cc/X3CS-RXCD (last updated Oct. 16,

2025). By contrast, state-court tort verdicts are premised on a preponderance of the evidence standard and

a lay jury’s assessment of disputed toxicological and

epidemiological data without any deference to EPA’s

technical expertise. Permitting state tort judgments

to operate as de facto mandatory warnings—warnings

that contradict EPA’s scientific assessments—effectively overrules the scientific processes and determinations that are the linchpin of a FIFRA registration.

State-law failure-to-warn suits have already

eroded the representations made by Monsanto and

confirmed by EPA regarding the safety profile of

glyphosate, as well as EPA’s requirements for labeling, all of which farmers rely on to make long-term

24

crop protection and weed management decisions. A

study published in the Journal of Agricultural and

Applied Economics found that glyphosate usage in

California declined substantially in the wake of

glyphosate class-action lawsuits in the state, with estimated treatment effects consistently negative and

ranging from 65% to 74% reduction. Macy Rosselle et

al., The Effects of Class-Action Lawsuits on California

Glyphosate Usage, 57 J. Agric. & Applied Econ. 466,

475 (2025), https://perma.cc/PH5J-PSYR. The study

concluded that “decisions in the courtroom regarding

glyphosate users’ health risks” are already influencing “pesticide use decisions in the real world[,]” and

that if the precedent set in California courts is accepted in other jurisdictions, there will be a reduction

in glyphosate usage on a national level. Id. This behavioral evidence is significant because it demonstrates that the policy consequences of tort-driven

scrutiny of EPA determinations are not hypothetical—they are already affecting farm-level weed management decisions that have agronomic consequences.

B. State-Law Failure-to-Warn Litigation Will

Continue Expanding to Other Pesticides

and Threaten the Availability of Crop

Protection Tools on which U.S. Agriculture Depends.

The disruptive effects of tort litigation on the regulatory regime governing pesticides are not limited to

glyphosate. Rather, any registered pesticide that

EPA, exercising its expert judgment, has determined

does not require a cancer or adverse-health warning

could become the next target of failure-to-warn lawsuits, with the potential for massive damages awards.

25

At this time, there are thousands of tort suits related

to the registration and distribution of the herbicide

paraquat. Consumer Notice, Paraquat Lawsuits,

https://perma.cc/DP8E-XTEB (last modified Feb. 5,

2026). Despite EPA’s confirmation that paraquat is a

safe and effective tool for weed control, one manufacturer has paid over $187 million to settle a multiplaintiff lawsuit and is still facing thousands of pending cases across the country. Jef Feeley, Popular Weed

Killer Could Cause Billions in Claims, FarmProgress

(Sep. 13, 2021), https://perma.cc/UG4R-PXK8.

Virtually any pesticide that has been in commercial use for over a decade has, by now, accumulated a

body of epidemiological and toxicological literature

that contains at least some studies with divergent

findings. That is not a feature unique to glyphosate or

chemical substances generally; rather, it is an inevitable characteristic of long-term epidemiological evidence, applying various methodologies, exposure populations, and study designs. The ongoing glyphosate

litigation has shown, however, that some degree of

scientific heterogeneity is all it takes to obtain enormous verdicts against a pesticide manufacturer

whose product carries a valid FIFRA registration and

whose product label reflects EPA’s determination that

no cancer warning is warranted.

As a result, manufacturers of pesticides with a

long commercial history and a voluminous body of scientific literature must weigh the accumulated scientific literature as a source of substantial future litigation exposure. The risk associated with that uncertainty can affect the economic viability of continued

investment in an EPA-registered pesticide, even

where the Agency has concluded that the product

26

poses no unreasonable risk when used according to its

label. Pesticide manufacturers may begin to remove

products from their portfolios that EPA has determined do not present any unreasonable risks to human health, which could in turn shrink the crop protection tools on which farmers rely for their livelihoods and to sustainably grow food and other agricultural products necessary to meet growing global population demands.

Beyond affecting existing products, the increased

exposure to state tort litigation chills pesticide innovation, incentivizing manufacturers to reallocate research and development from high-agronomic-value,

broad-spectrum chemistries to products with lower

litigation risk, such as pesticides with targeted application. Indeed, the products with the greatest agronomic value—and thus the greatest potential to protect yields across a broader range of crops and acres—

carry the highest risk of litigation, deterring their development and distribution. This distortion of research and development priorities will deprive growers of versatile, effective crop protection tools, increase production costs and operational complexity,

and ultimately undermine efforts to combat herbicide-resistant weeds and maintain agricultural

productivity.

Finally, allowing state tort litigation to effectively

drive removal of EPA-registered pesticide products

from the market would erode the regulatory certainty

that a FIFRA registration is intended to provide. This

uncertainty would disrupt growers’ multi-year

crop-protection planning and complicate integrated

pest- and resistance-management strategies. Growers who have made long-term investments—including

27

in specialized equipment and application technology,

storage infrastructure, and seed supply contracts—

based on the reasonable expectation that registered

pesticides will remain available, could see those investments undermined. In short, allowing state tort

litigation to displace EPA’s registration decisions under FIFRA would create untenable instability that

harms agricultural productivity and long-term planning.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should reverse the Missouri Court of Appeals’ decision and hold

that FIFRA preempts state-law failure-to-warn tort

claims.

Respectfully submitted,

ELLEN STEEN

TRAVIS CUSHMAN

American Farm Bureau

Federation

Ste. 1000W

600 Maryland Ave. SW

Washington, DC 20024

Counsel for American

Farm Bureau Federation

DAVID Y. CHUNG

Counsel of Record

LYNN T. PHAN

Crowell & Moring LLP

1001 Pennsylvania Ave.,

N.W.

Washington, DC 20004

(202) 624-2500

dchung@crowell.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae