Opinion
November 29, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Brien, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiffs' claims for inadequate warning and labeling of tampon boxes are preempted by 21 U.S.C. § 360k and 21 C.F.R. § 808.1 (b), together with 21 C.F.R. § 01.430 (see, Moore v Kimberly-Clark Corp., 867 F.2d 243; Lindquist v Tambrands, Inc., 721 F. Supp. 1058; Poloney v Tambrands, Inc., 260 Ga. 850, 412 S.E.2d 526).
Moreover, we agree that the external warning appearing on the back of the tampon package complies with the Federal regulations as a matter of law (see, 47 Fed Reg 26987 [1982]; Sloman v Tambrands, Inc., 841 F. Supp. 699; Beecher v Tambrands, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 86; see generally, Brudnok v Tambrands, Inc., 1993 US Dist LEXIS 19185 [US Dist Ct, Ore, Mar. 24, 1993, Juba, M.]; Causie v Tambrands, Inc., US Dist Ct, WD Tenn, June 11, 1991, McRae, J., 90-2236-4B; Dallenbach v Tambrands, Inc., US Dist Ct, ND Iowa, Mar. 14, 1991, Hansen, J., No. C89-76; Polizzi v International Playtex, US Dist Ct, ND NY, Mar. 1, 1991, Cholakis, J., 89 CV 1196; Lindquist v Tambrands, Inc., supra). Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.