Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶110

Suppose, for example, a State mandates that pesticides causing moderate skin irritation bear the word “WARNING.” That state law would be preempted by FIFRA because the EPA’s regulations require that the label for pesticides causing moderate skin irritation bear the signal word “CAUTION.” 40 CFR §§156.62, 156.64(a)(3). The State’s labeling requirement is different from (and indeed conflicts with) the EPA’s regulations. By contrast, if a State seeks to hold a manufacturer liable under state law for failing to label a pesticide with the same warning words that federal regulations require, application of the state law would not be preempted under 7 U. S. C. §136v(b). In that situation, the State is not requiring anything “in addition to or different from” FIFRA’s requirements.

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.