Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶146

The majority also points out that the Bates plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claim concerned a pesticide's lack of effcacy, while Durnell's claim here relates to the pesticide's safety. Ante, at 386; 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 effcacy as part of the registration process, so the EPA-approved label would of course not preempt state-required statements related to effcacy. See § 136a(c)(5).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.