Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶70

Moreover, the premise of Durnell's §136a(f)(2) argument is fawed. 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.

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