at *15. This analysis is borne out in the present case, where an examination of Plaintiff’s failure to warn claim leads back to his reliance on a showing of inadequate labeling. Plaintiff further asserts FIFRA preemption of inadequate label and failure to warn claims does not preclude other negligence claims. We also note amicus’ complaint that our decision regarding FIFRA preemption leaves plaintiffs "remediless”. Other courts preempting failure to warn claims have allowed other negligence claims to the extent they do not rely on a showing of inadequate labeling. See, e.g., Worm II, 5 F.3d at 747-49 (permitting claims for negligent testing and research based on defective product and express warranty claims not based on EPA-mandated statements); but see Papas II, 985 F.2d at 519-20 (<HOLDING>). We need not reach the issue of preemption of
holding that fifra preempts state law failure to warn claims holding that fifra preempts breach of warranty claims based on labeling holding fifra preempts implied warranty claims holding fifra preempts no commonlaw claims holding fifra preempts inadequate label claims but not claims for failure to warn through other channels