Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

FIFRA Does Not Preempt State Law Labeling Claims
Based on Product Efficacy

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In American Cyanamid Co. v. Geye, 79 S.W.3d 21 (Tex. 2002), the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the decision of the Eastland Court of Appeals, which had reversed and remanded the decision of the district court. Alleging damages to their peanut crops, a group of peanut farmers brought the instant action against the herbicide manufacturer for breach of express and implied warranties and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (TDTPA). At trial, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer. However, on appeal, the court of appeals reversed and remanded the district court's decision, and the instant court affirmed, holding that the group's state law claims were not preempted by the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

Background

In 1993, the members of the group of farmers treated their peanut crops with a mixture of two herbicides, Pursuit and Prowl, which were both manufactured by American Cyanamid Company (American). Id. at 23. The group claimed that they relied on the herbicides' labels and advertisements, which claimed that mixing the herbicides and using the mixture on peanut crops was safe. Id. However, the group alleged that the mixture injured their peanut crop by "stunt[ing] root growth and inhibit[ing] foliage development[,] which resulted in a 3,000-pound per acre reduction in crop yield." Id. Thereafter, the group sued American for breach of express and implied warranties, strict liability, and violation of the TDTPA. Id. In response, American successfully motioned for summary judgment, alleging that the group's lawsuit was preempted by FIFRA. Id. The court of appeals reversed, and American brought the instant appeal. Id.

Arguments

On appeal, American asserted that the court of appeals erred in finding that the group's crop damage claim was not preempted by FIFRA. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

In analyzing and deciding the instant case, the court provided the following summary:

Congress has dictated that state actions regarding product labeling are preempted to the extent that the content of the product label is regulated. But Congress has permitted its regulatory body, the Environmental Protection Agency, to choose NOT to regulate product labeling with respect to how well a product works, that is, the product's "efficacy." Central to this case, the EPA has also chosen to define product efficacy to include "target area phytotoxicity," that is, the effect of a particular product or combination of products on the crops that are deliberately sprayed. Simply put, the EPA does not regulate herbicide labels regarding how well a product works, and this includes if the product actually injures the crops it was intended to assist.
Id.

Without federal regulation of the efficacy of herbicides, the court held that state courts may entertain state common law claims based on target area crop damage without running afoul of federal jurisdiction limitations pursuant to FIFRA. Id. Therefore, the group's claims were not preempted. Id.

The case was decided on June 6, 2002.