Opinion ID: 1161575
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: California's regulatory program

Text: Congress, the United States asserts, did not intend to leave pesticide efficacy unregulated. On the contrary, Congress specifically sanctioned state regulation of pesticide efficacy. FIFRA clearly does contemplate a state/federal partnership in the regulation of pesticide efficacy and phytotoxicity. Section 136v(a) provides that a State may regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device in the State, but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this subchapter. This does not mean, however, that the regulation may be accomplished through the back door by means of tort suits that effectively require changes in EPA-approved labeling. California requires that pesticide manufacturers and their products be registered with the Department of Pesticide Regulation. (Food & Agr.Code, §§ 12811, 12993.) The code requires that a comprehensive risk/benefit analysis be undertaken in the public interest when the department considers whether a product should be registered in the first instance or whether its registration should be canceled. (Food & Agr.Code, §§ 12824, 12825; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, § 6158.) With regard to the specific claim made in this case, the department may require data on [p]hytotoxicity and [t]he effect from the use of mixtures of two or more products in combination. (Cal.Code Regs, tit. 3, § 6192, subds. (b), (e).) To ensure that California's agriculture is protected from unforeseen or newly discovered risks, the director is charged with the responsibility for the continuous evaluation of all registered products. (Cal.Code Regs, tit. 3, § 6226.) As part of this continuous evaluation, the director must make administrative determinations regarding precisely the issue raised by this case[u]ndesirable phytotoxicity. (Cal.Code Regs, tit. 3, § 6221, subd. (f).) Given the comprehensive and stringent character of California's program of pesticide regulation, having lay juries assess questions of phytotoxicity in the context of failure-to-warn claims is neither necessary nor desirable, and holding that such actions are preempted by FIFRA promotes federalism, rather than undermines it.