King "retains rigid control over the entirely of the labeling and packaging ... largely displacing the ability of manufacturers to make additional claims.” Id. Because the provisions of FIFRA do not exhaust the field of labeling, we find the King decision nondispositive. 9 . See generally N.Y. Uniform Commercial Code Law §§ 2-314, 2-315 (McKinley 1993). Section 2-314, entitled "Implied Warranty: Merchantability; Usage of Trade,” states in part that "[g]oods to be merchantable must be ... adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require...." N.Y. Uniform Commercial Code Law §§ 2-314(2)(e) (McKinley 1993). Section 2-315 addresses the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. 10 . See Wright v. Dow Chemical, U.S.A., 845 F.Supp. 503, 511 (M.D.Tenn.1993) (<HOLDING>). 11 . The official comment to 2-315 states
holding that an action for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the uniform commercial code is a product liability action within the meaning of the products liability act if as here the action is for injury to person or property resulting from a sale of a product holding that an implied warranty of merchantability does not create a labeling requirement different from or in addition to those mandated by fifra because the implied warranty of merchantability arises from the sale itself not from a state labeling regulation citation omitted holding that fifra preempts breach of warranty claims based on labeling holding fifra preempts implied warranty claims holding inter alia defendant breached implied warranty of merchantability where an express warranty regarding safety of goods was printed on package and where goods failed to conform to the express warranty