Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶111

Consider another example. A State wants to ensure that the pesticides its residents use are properly labeled and contain all warnings necessary and adequate to protect against unreasonable risks to its residents and the environment. So it either enacts a statute that makes liable any pesticide manufacturer that fails to provide adequate and necessary warnings, or relies on the existing tort regime to accomplish this same result. In either case, the state-law scheme merely “duplicate[s]” FIFRA’s adequate-and- necessary-warnings requirement—and is therefore not preempted. Bates, 544 U. S., at 442. Why not? Because the State is not requiring anything “in addition to or different from” what FIFRA’s own misbranding prohibition requires.

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