Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶139

The plaintiffs in Bates brought state tort claims against Dow Agrosciences for failing to warn them that the use of its pesticide in a particular type of soil would stunt crop growth. Id., at 435. We held that States could impose label- based requirements that were equivalent to FIFRA’s misbranding prohibition. Id., at 452–453. And we remanded for the lower courts to decide in the first instance whether the particular failure-to-warn claim at issue in Bates imposed a requirement equivalent to FIFRA’s misbranding prohibition. Id., at 453–454.

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