In a recent en banc decision out of the Eleventh Circuit, the Court found that the panel had used an improper standard in holding that a state law failure to warn cause of action was not preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) and after clarifying the appropriate inquiry, sent the matter back to the panel for further consideration.  In the case, the plaintiff averred that after years of using the popular weedkiller, Roundup, he developed cancer, which he claims Monsanto failed to adequately warn consumers was a risk of using that product.  Carson v. Monsanto Company, 72 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023).  Monsanto responded that plaintiff’s Georgia state law claims were expressly or impliedly preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) because the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) approved a label for Roundup which lacked a cancer warning, and classified Roundup’s principal ingredient, glyphosate, as “not likely to be carcinogenic.”     Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Eleventh Circuit, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, Georgia, Preemption, Toxic Torts

On July 25, 2023, a Third Circuit panel rejected an environmental group’s challenge of federally approved changes to Pennsylvania’s State Implementation Plan (“SIP”), holding that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) emissions-based analysis did not violate the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, 2023 WL 471884, at *6 (3d Cir. 2023). The panel’s reasoning focused on a close statutory reading of §7410 of the CAA, which prevents EPA from approving any SIP revision that would “interfere with any applicable requirement for attainment and reasonable further progress” in reaching the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”). Id. at *4. NAAQS are air quality benchmarks that each state must work toward by reducing their air pollution levels. Id. at *1. Ultimately, the Third Circuit held that Pennsylvania’s revisions did not interfere with NAAQS attainment because Pennsylvania reasonably concluded that emissions would likely decrease under the source specific requirements imposed by the revised plan. Id. at *4. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Citizen Suit, Clean Air Act, Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas, HAPs, Hazardous Air Pollutants, Legislation, Pennsylvania, Rulemaking, Third Circuit