Nonetheless, we address each, of Appellants’ arguments. In their first argument, Appellants attempt to escape the preemptive effect of FIFRA by looking to the Act’s purpose, which they assert “is to regulate pesticide labeling to insure product safety.” Appellants characterize their action as one dealing with product efficacy and not product safety. This distinction is important, Appellants contend, because FIFRA preempts only those defective labeling cases involving product safety. It appears to us that the sole purpose of this argument is to distinguish the issues involved in this case from those disposed of by this court in Yowell. Appellants contend that Yowell involved only issues of product safety. To support their argument, Appellants cite authorities upp. 597 (D.Idaho 1994) (<HOLDING>). Because Appellants do not support their
holding that those state law claims specifically related to labeling and packaging are preempted by fifra holding that fifra preempts state law failure to warn claims holding that labelbased claims for damage to corn crop resulting from pesticides failure to control corn rootworms were preempted by fifra holding fifra preempts no commonlaw claims holding that labelbased claims for damage to potato crop resulting from failure of fungicide to control fungus and dry rot are preempted by fifra