Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶127

The continuing force of FIFRA’s misbranding prohibition, even after the EPA’s registration of a pesticide, thus resolves today’s preemption dispute. Since FIFRA’s misbranding prohibition remains a requirement with which registered pesticides must comply, state-law duties that are equivalent to the misbranding prohibition add nothing new or different that would trigger preemption. If an additional warning is necessary to comply with FIFRA’s misbranding prohibition, then a state-law duty can require that warning, even if the EPA approved the label without it.

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