Dow Agrosciences manufactured and marketed "Strongarm"pesticide. The pesticide was marketed as good to use anywhere peanuts were grown, when in actuality, the pesticide stunted the growth of the peanut plants when used in soil with a pH of 7.0 or greater. A group of Texas peanut farmers sued Dow after their crops were damaged by the pesticide, making state-law claims of strict liability, negligence, fraud, and breach of express warranty. Dow argued that the state-law claims were preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and won a motion for summary judgment in the district court. The farmers appealed and the appellant court also found for Dow. The farmers appealed to the Supreme Court. FIFRA gives the EPA the right to regulate pesticides. The EPA requires that the labels on pesticides be free of false or misleading statements. FIFRA says that states may regulate the sale and use of pesticides, but the "[s]tate shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under [FIFRA]." How do you think the Supreme Court ruled on this appeal? Do you think the strict liability claims are preempted by FIFRA? Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005).