Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶123

The majority fails to grapple with any of this. Nor does it address the internal tension its theory produces. The majority says that the registration process creates a requirement because a pesticide manufacturer must use the label exactly as the EPA approved it, with no additions or changes. But the statutory misbranding prohibition might well require a different or additional warning on the label than what the EPA approved, since approval is merely prima facie evidence of compliance. The majority’s theory thus cannot be squared with what FIFRA plainly requires. That is, notwithstanding the EPA’s approval of its label, a manufacturer has “a continuing obligation to adhere to FIFRA’s labeling requirements,” including the misbranding prohibition. Id., at 438.

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