Therefore, it seems that Plaintiff's failure to warn claims do not impose a labeling or packaging requirement that is "inaddition to or different from" those required under FIFRA, and are not preempted. See Golden Wolf Partners v. BASF Corp., 2010 WL 5173197, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2010) (holding that plaintiffs' failure to warn claims were not preempted by FIFRA because they were consistent with FIFRA's prohibitions against misbranding); Adams v. United States, 622 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1010 (D. Idaho 2009) (rejecting argument that FIFRA preempted state claims: "Indeed, the Court's own examination shows that plaintiffs' claims appear to track FIFRA by alleging that the labels omit necessary warnings, do not contain adequate instructions, and are misleading."). Defendant argues that Roundup in fact is not carcinogenic and that the EPA has made determinations that this is the case.