Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶53

To be sure, in Bates, the state failure-to-warn claims at issue targeted a pesticide label's effcacy claims. See id., at 435, 440. Those state tort claims were not preempted. Bates distinguished between effcacy claims on the one hand—which EPA did not review as a part of registration— and safety claims on the other hand, which EPA does thoroughly review at registration and are therefore preempted. See id., at 440 (“EPA's approval of a pesticide label does not refect any determination on the part of EPA that the pesticide will be effcacious”) (quotation marks omitted).

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