Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶144

The majority also points out that the Bates plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn claim concerned a pesticide’s lack of efficacy, while Durnell’s claim here relates to the pesticide’s safety. Ante, at 12; see also Brief for Petitioner 31–34. That matters to Bates’s outcome, the majority says, because the EPA had not reviewed the pesticide’s efficacy as part of the registration process, so the EPA-approved label would of course not preempt state-required statements related to efficacy. See §136a(c)(5).

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