additional or different information in a pesticide’s federally approved label or promotional material” (citing Worm, 5 F.3d at 749)). We agree that a cause of action for breach of an implied warranty stems from the sale of the goods as well as from state regulation, but believe that Congress, by so thoroughly regulating th,e labeling of the products, intended to preempt implied warranty claims. To hold otherwise contravenes Congress’ intent in enacting the legislation, therefore implied warranty claims that relate to labeling are preempted. In light of this, we must consider the second prong of § 136v(b): whether the implied warranty claims at issue relate to the labeling or packaging of a product. See generally Trinity Mountain Seed Co. v. MSD Agvet, 844 F.Supp. 597 (D.Idaho 1994) (<HOLDING>). Implied warranty claims imposed on the sale
holding fifra preempts no commonlaw claims holding fifra preempts implied warranty claims holding that fifra preempts state law failure to warn claims holding that those state law claims specifically related to labeling and packaging are preempted by fifra holding that fifra preempts breach of warranty claims based on labeling