and assert claims based on their allegation that Defendant Dow was negligent or remiss in its advice on the hotline.” In addition, the district court’s ruling barring claims of inadequate warnings or instructions as preempted by FIFRA does not indicate that negligent testing is also preempted. In affirming the district court’s FIFRA rulings, the court of appeals recognized that “the district court did not determine that those claims [of negligent misrepresentation and negligent testing] were preempted by FI- FRA.” Goeb, 1999 WL 561956, at *7. We also affirm and hold that appellants’ claims of negligent misrepresentation and negligent testing are not preempted by FIFRA. See 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b) (preempting only requirements .as to labeling and packaging); Worm I, 970 F.2d at 1307 (<HOLDING>). Affirmed. 1 . The other insecticides were
holding that those state law claims specifically related to labeling and packaging are preempted by fifra holding that stateimposed standards of care relating to product design manufacture and testing do not qualify as labeling requirements and thus are not preempted by fifra holding that the labeling act did not preempt design defect claim against cigarette manufacturer holding that fifra preempts breach of warranty claims based on labeling holding that the labeling act did not preempt negligent and wanton design and manufacture claims against cigarette manufacturer