gloss · the reading room

Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶68

Moreover, the premise of Durnell’s §136a(f )(2) argument is flawed. It is highly doubtful that EPA would bring an enforcement action for misbranding against a manufacturer for using the EPA-approved and EPA- required label. Rather, a manufacturer’s label might constitute a misbranding violation if the label (i) included information that was not on the EPA-approved label, or (ii) omitted information that was on the EPA-approved label. Under those circumstances, the mere fact of registration obviously may not serve as a complete defense to an EPA enforcement action, as §136a(f )(2) indicates. In that context, §136a(f )(2) makes complete sense.
Read in context ›

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