ARA President & CEO Daren Coppock Pens Op-Ed in The Scoop Highlighting How Court Decisions Threaten America’s Agricultural Supply Chain

ARLINGTON, Va. – The Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) President & CEO Daren Coppock penned an opinion piece in Farm Journal's The Scoop, highlighting how the upcoming Supreme Court decision on Monsanto v. Durnell threatens America’s agricultural supply chain.

"The Supreme Court’s decision may very well determine whether pesticide regulation remains grounded in science and federal law, or becomes a moving target shaped by courtroom verdicts. For American agriculture, the consequences would be immediate and real," Coppock stated. "Preserving uniform federal labeling protects everyone who depends on the food system—and that means all of us."

The full opinion piece can be found here or read below.

From Compliance to Liability: How Court Decisions Threaten America’s Agricultural Supply Chain

Pesticide labels are not suggestions. Under federal law, they are binding rules.

For decades, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) has governed the review, labeling, and use of pesticides in the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develops and approves pesticide labels. Once approved, those labels dictate how products may be sold, handled, and applied nationwide. Deviating from them is illegal, and the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) strongly supports following labeling requirements.

A case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, Monsanto v. Durnell, threatens to unravel that system. If state tort claims are allowed to impose additional warning requirements beyond those approved by EPA, businesses that comply fully with federal law could still be held liable under state law. The result would be immediate disruption across the agricultural supply chain—higher costs, reduced access to vital tools, and increased uncertainty for the farmers who depend on them.

Why Uniform Labels Matter

FIFRA does not just regulate manufacturers; it imposes strict legal requirements throughout the supply chain. Agricultural retailers are prohibited from altering or supplementing pesticide labels, and professional applicators must apply products exactly as directed by the label. Any violation can bring substantial civil penalties.

Uniform labeling makes compliance possible; without it, federal law becomes a guessing game.

National uniformity is needed because retailers serve customers across multiple states. Insurers underwrite coverage based on predictable compliance rules, and farmers rely on timely access to lawfully labeled products during narrow planting and pest-control windows.

An Impossible Legal Conflict

State-law “failure to warn” claims argue that an EPA-approved label should have included additional warnings. But this contradicts FIFRA, which states that pesticide labels cannot be changed unilaterally.

Allowing state tort claims to impose different warning requirements creates an impossible bind: obey federal law and face state liability, or attempt to satisfy state law by breaking federal law. Congress did not intend for compliance itself to become grounds for punishment.

If national uniformity were to end, insurance premiums could increase, coverage could become harder to secure, and products farmers need could be pulled from shelves, even though they remain fully approved by the EPA. Costs would likely increase as service capacity decreased, and that pressure would flow directly down the supply chain to the farm gate.

Science Versus Jury Verdicts

FIFRA assigns responsibility for evaluating pesticide safety to the EPA, not to state courts. The agency makes those determinations through scientific review, public input, and a weighing of risks and benefits.

Tort litigation bypasses that process and asks juries to second-guess EPA’s scientific judgments years later, without access to the full regulatory record and without the agency itself as a party. If those verdicts can override FIFRA and federal approval, the result is a patchwork system in which legal obligations vary by state and evolve retroactively—requirements that retailers and applicators cannot comply with without violating federal law.

Why Glyphosate Matters Beyond One Case

The Supreme Court case centers on glyphosate, one of the most widely used and reviewed herbicides in American agriculture. EPA has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic when used as directed and has approved its labeling accordingly.

Glyphosate is affordable, effective, and integral to modern farming practices that reduce soil erosion, conserve fuel, and maintain yields. Retailers, applicators, and farmers rely on EPA’s determinations for every pesticide they sell, apply, or use.

If a product that has cleared decades of federal review can still be deemed unlawfully labeled under state law, no product is truly secure.

What’s at Stake

Congress designed FIFRA so pesticide safety decisions would be made prospectively, scientifically, and consistently. Undermining that framework turns compliance into liability—and jeopardizes farmer access to lawful, essential tools.

The Supreme Court’s decision may very well determine whether pesticide regulation remains grounded in science and federal law, or becomes a moving target shaped by courtroom verdicts. For American agriculture, the consequences would be immediate and real.

Preserving uniform federal labeling protects everyone who depends on the food system—and that means all of us.

                                                                                        ###