|
June 26 BNA Toxics Law reporter.
Reversing a position staked out in the Clinton era (ah, the good old days), the feds filed an amicus ("friend of the court") brief with the US Supreme Court arguing that FIFRA (the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) preempts state law claims that impose labeling and packaging requirements different from those mandated by FIFRA. American Cyanamid Co. v. Geye. The administration files the brief in a case where a pesticide manufacturer is asking the justices to review a Texas Supreme Court decision which held that the federal esticide labeling law does not bar labeling-related claims involving crop damage.
"The United States has reexamined the position it urged in [the past] and has concluded that its arguments that FIFRA categorically does not preempt common law actions are incorrect. That position no longer represents the view of the United States."
Texas farmers sued alleging their peanut crop was damaged by the combination of two herbicides manufactured by the same company. The farmers said the combination was phytotoxic and stunted the roots of young peanut plants, causing a substantially smaller yield. In their suit, they relied on company magazine adverts and brochures, which indicated that the two herbicides (Pursuit and Prowl) can be mixed for use on peanut crops. They argued breach of warranties, strict liability, and violation of the TX deceptive trade practices law.
The company sought summary judgment on preemption grounds, arguing that FIFRA expressly prohibits states from imposing "any requirements for labeling... in addition to or different from" those imposed by FIFRA.
PROBLEMS YOU CONSERVATIVES SHOULD HAVE WITH THIS BUSH POSITION:
1. States rights. Those of you (ATTALUS!) who said the recent gay sodomy case usurped states rights to rule themselves should line up right behind me on opposing this. In most enviro situations, states are free to pass MORE RESTRICTIVE rules than the federal law provides. In this case, prohibiting the warranty and TX decepting trade practices claims is especially troubling: it replaces state Contract-based claims (which make sense in a buyer-seller relationship) with federal environmental oversight.
2. Big government: this position relies on the EPA to be wise enough to see every such possibility as this, and write rules addressing those issues before they come up. Do we really trust the EPA to be THAT smart?? I don't, but perhaps that's because I work with them daily.
[ 07-09-2003, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]
__________________
 
|