Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Pesticides
Tomato Growers Claims Preempted by FIFRA
Harrison M. PittmanResearch Assistant Professor of Law
In Hardin v. BASF Corp., 397 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 2005), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that tomato growers' claims for negligence and strict liability against the manufacturer of a rice herbicide were preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 136-136y. The federal district court held the growers' claims were preempted because "regardless of how the issues were couched by . . . [the growers], they were failure-to-warn claims, or if . . . [growers] prevailed on another theory, the resolution would require a label change." Id. at 1084. The growers appealed to the Eighth Circuit, where is was explained that FIFRA "expressly provides for a defense, arising from preemption, against certain state law claims that 'impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required'" under the Act, and that "claims for design defect or manufacturing error are not preempted by FIFRA, as they do not impact labeling or packaging requirements." Id. at 1085 (citations omitted). The growers asserted that they brought a design defect claim not preempted by FIFRA "because precautions will not reduce . . . [the herbicide's] damage-causing drift." Id. The court stated that this assertion was contrary to its holding in Netland v. Hess & Clark, Inc., 284 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 2002), where it was stated that "FIFRA preempts any cause of action which has the effect of directly, or indirectly challenging an EPA approved label" and that "'[t]o guide our preemption analysis, we must ask whether in seeking to avoid liability for any error, would the manufacturer choose to alter the label or the product.'" Id. (citations omitted). Here, the court held that the growers' claims were preempted because "a favorable outcome . . . would induce, and even require" the manufacturer to change its label. Id. at 1086.
The case was decided on February 11, 2005; this summary was posted Apr. 29, 2005.