Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶126

This example rebuts the majority’s claim that a registered pesticide can be misbranded only if the label contains information that was not on the label that the EPA approved or omits information that was. Ante, at 16–17. Far from creating a new requirement under FIFRA, the EPA’s approval of the label did not suffice to establish compliance with the statutory requirement that a pesticide not be misbranded, nor did it shield Monsanto from liability for violating the misbranding requirement.And if a state- tort duty, akin to Durnell’s failure-to-warn claim, had likewise required Monsanto to include a leak warning on the label, the State’s requirement would have been identical to FIFRA’s and therefore would not have been preempted— regardless of the fact that the EPA had previously approved the label without that warning.

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