The label is the law: What the Supreme Court's Durnell decision means for farmers

Clear, consistent pesticide labeling is essential for farmers and their livelihoods. On Aug. 11, that was the throughline of a webinar hosted by the NC Chamber and the North Carolina Farm Bureau, where legal and policy experts broke down what the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 25 opinion in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell means for the farmers who depend on tools like glyphosate.

Ray Starling of the NC Chamber moderated a discussion with Jennifer Dickey of the U.S. Chamber, appellate attorney Michael Kimberly, Jake Parker of the North Carolina Farm Bureau, and the Modern Ag Alliance’s Executive Director Elizabeth Burns-Thompson. Their conversation offered farmers insight into an opinion that will shape crop protection policy for years to come.

What the Court’s action means. 

The Supreme Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims that would require a warning beyond what EPA has already approved on the label. As Burns-Thompson put it, that finding validates that “The label is the law.” It’s also the first thing the roughly 1 million certified pesticide applicators nationwide, plus nearly 900,000 more workers learn during training. 

The work isn’t finished. 

Panelists agreed the ruling shifts, rather than ends, the debate. Within a day of the opinion, members of Congress were already moving to introduce legislation that would undo the clarity the Court just provided. Earlier this year, a provision reinforcing the federal labeling standard was stripped from the House Farm Bill amid pressure tied to uninformed MAHA activists. States, too, remain an active front, with several enacting legislation recognizing EPA-label compliance before the Court ever ruled, and more work continues there. As Parker put it, “the next attack” is coming, whether through Congress, agency action or a fresh round of state proposals.

Farmers’ voices are critical. 

That is why every panelist emphasized that farmers’ voices matter, and they need to keep showing up. Agricultural voices in amicus briefs and public comments made a real difference in this case. Burns-Thompson echoed that message, saying there is “no such thing as too much” when it comes to telling agriculture’s story to courts, lawmakers, and the public.