shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter.” 5 . See generally N.Y. Uniform Commercial Code Law § 2-313(l)(a) (McKinney 1993) (stating that ”[a]ny affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise") 6 . An exception exists if the express warranty is EPA mandated. See infra, subsection ii. 7 . Worm v. American Cyanamid Co., 5 F.3d 744 (4th Cir.1993). 8 . Note that the First Circuit’s holding in King v. Collagen, 983 F.2d 1130 (1st Cir.1993), seems to support defendant's argument. See King, 983 F.2d at 1135 (<HOLDING>). With further analysis, however, we find that
holding that plaintiffs state claims were not preempted because defendant failed to show that these claims rested on standards other than those permitted by the fda holding that state claims for fraudulent submissions to the fda were preempted holding fraudulent representations to the fda could not sustain statelaw claims holding that state law claims involving fdca section 510k medical devices which are subjected to a relatively cursory approval process were not preempted because the fda had taken the position that its regulations only preempted claims involving section 360ec devises which go through a rigorous premarket approval process holding that express warranty claims that could only arise out of fda approval are preempted