Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, WARNINGS ISSUES—CHEMICAL PRODUCTS—11th Cir.: Judgment against Monsanto reversed after Supreme Court’s Roundup preemption ruling, (Nov 2, 2026)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell foreclosed state-law claims seeking a cancer warning which the herbicide’s EPA-approved label did not contain.

In an action brought against an herbicide manufacturer for allegedly failing to warn consumers that its product could cause cancer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted the parties’ joint motion for summary adjudication and reversed a district court judgment in favor of the consumer. On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the appeals court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempted the state common law claim because it sought to impose a cancer-warning requirement beyond the labeling requirements approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Salas v. Monsanto Co., No. 24-14030 (11th Cir. Oct. 28, 2026)).

Background. The consumer alleged that Monsanto negligently failed to warn that Roundup, a widely used herbicide containing glyphosate, was toxic to humans and could cause cancer. Monsanto argued that the claim was preempted by FIFRA, under which a state may not impose labeling or packaging requirements that are “in addition to or different from” federal requirements. The EPA is responsible for reviewing pesticide products and approving their labels in the U.S., and Roundup’s EPA-approved label did not contain a cancer warning. The preemption question had previously reached the Eleventh Circuit in Carson v. Monsanto Co., 92 F.4th 980, 986 (11th Cir. 2024). Relying on Carson, the court initially affirmed the judgment in favor of the consumer, holding that FIFRA did not preempt the similar state-law failure to warn claim. Monsanto then sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Precedent. In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 609 U.S. 371 (2026), the Supreme Court held that FIFRA preempted the state-law failure to warn claim brought against Monsanto. Because the EPA had approved a label without a cancer warning, a state-law duty requiring Monsanto to add such a warning would impose a labeling requirement different from or additional to the federal requirement, which was expressly prohibited by FIFRA. The High Court therefore vacated the Eleventh Circuit’s earlier judgment in Salas and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Durnell.

Preemption. On remand, the parties jointly moved for summary adjudication and reversal, agreeing that the Supreme Court’s decision in Durnell dispositively resolved the preemption issue in Monsanto’s favor. The Eleventh Circuit agreed, holding that the consumer could not proceed with her state common law failure to warn claim. Accordingly, the court granted the joint motion and reversed the district court’s judgment against the manufacturer.

The case is No. 24-14030.

Judge: Per curiam.

Attorneys: Christina H. Martinez (Podhurst Orseck, PA) for Nancy C. Salas. David Meir Zionts (Covington & Burling, LLP) for Monsanto Co.

Companies: Monsanto Co.

MainStory: TopStory WarningsNews ChemicalNews AlabamaNews FloridaNews