ELR Citation: ELR 20629
No(s). C 89 0332-FMS (N.D. Cal. Nov 13, 1989)

The court holds that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does not preempt the provisions of the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (also known as Proposition 65) requiring businesses to give warnings of exposure to known toxic chemicals. FIFRA expressly preempts state regulations governing pesticide labeling and packaging, but expressly permits state restrictions on pesticide sale or use. Plaintiff has failed to show that every warning method that would satisfy Proposition 65 must be characterized as "labeling" under FIFRA. To the extent that Proposition 65 merely imposes restrictions on pesticide sale or use, without requiring additions or deletions to pesticide package labels, it is not preempted by FIFRA.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Michael J. Bonesteel, Patricia J. Kenney, Tammy L. Andrews
Haight, Brown & Bonesteel
201 Santa Monica Blvd., P.O. Box 680, Santa Monica CA 90406
(213) 458-1000

Counsel for Defendants
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, Chief Ass't Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice, 1515 K St., Ste. 511, Sacramento CA 95814
(916) 324-5437

Theodora Berger, Ass't Attorney General
3580 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 600, Los Angeles CA 90010
(213) 736-2114