stating that FIFRA’s purpose is to promote safety. See, e.g., Merrell v. Thomas, 608 F.Supp. 644 (D.Or.1985), aff'd 807 F.2d 776 (9th Cir.1986). However, Appellants fail to cite a single case in which a court has held that FIFRA’s preemptive effect is limited to cases involving product safety. “Failure to cite relevant authority where available, or to set forth why such authority is not available, constitutes an abandonment of the point under Rule 84.04(d).” Williams v. Belgrade State Bank, 953 S.W.2d 187, 190 (Mo.App.1997). Furthermore, Respondents cite cases from other jurisdictions in which courts have held that FIFRA preempts label-based claims of product ineffectiveness much like the one now before us. See, e.g., Bruce v. ICI Americas, Inc., 933 F.Supp. 781 (S.D.Iowa 1996) (<HOLDING>); Trinity Mountain Seed Co. v. MSD Agvet, 844
holding the state law claims were not preempted holding that fifra preempts state law failure to warn 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 holding that labelbased claims for damage to corn crop resulting from pesticides failure to control corn rootworms were preempted by fifra holding that those state law claims specifically related to labeling and packaging are preempted by fifra