Abstract The paper discusses the judicial process as applied to pesticide court cases, which have seemingly not resulted in any significant changes in pesticide law. The paper analyzes how the most consistent feature of the decisions in the court cases was that when harm was caused to a business or the livelihood of farmers, the U.S. Supreme Court generally agreed to hear the case, and found in favor of the plaintiffs against the chemical manufacturers. The paper further discusses that when the case was brought by an individual, and it was a matter of personal injury resulting from incidental contact with the substance in question, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, in some cases, a settlement was negotiated. The paper further analyzes a case that succeeded where the suit brought on the basis that the chemical companies were unreasonably withholding information that should be made available to the public.
Table of Contents:
Bates et al v. Dow AgroSciences LLC and Citizen Right to Sue
Precursor Legal Battle: Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
Three Additional FIFRA Suits
League of Wilderness Defenders v. Forsgren (2002) Raises Timber Issues
Guzman v. Amvac Chemical Corporation Won Workers' Rights
Judicial Process in Two Related Lawsuits
Endangered Species and Pesticides
The Court Refused to Hear a Pesticide Case
Roundup
Discussion
Findings
References
From the Paper "While manufacturers were required to disclose all ingredients to the EPA, even inert ingredient, the EPA "routinely withholds this information from the public because of industry claims that the information is subject to trade secrecy laws. The plaintiffs argued that EPA wrongfully accepted manufacturers' blanket claims of confidentiality without first ascertaining that the inerts in the six pesticide products qualified as trade secrets" (Daily Environment Reporter)."
