Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶94
Monsanto argues that 7 U. S. C. § 136v(b)—a provision of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)—expressly preempts Durnell's failure-to-warn claim. See ibid. (providing that state labeling “requirements” that are “in addition to or different from those required under” FIFRA are preempted). Today, the Court agrees. The majority emphasizes that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has consistently registered Roundup—a precondition to Monsanto's ability to sell that product—and has thus approved Roundup's label without a cancer warning. Ante, at 380–381. According to the majority, the EPA's registration decision and approval of Roundup's label created a labeling “requirement” under FIFRA: namely, that Monsanto sell Roundup with the label exactly as the EPA approved it. Ante, at 383–385. Thus, the majority concludes, Durnell's lawsuit added a labeling…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.