This decision affirms a judgment against Monsanto for failing to warn of the toxic nature of Roundup.  It holds that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (7 USC 136 et seq.) does not preempt state common law duty to warn and defective design products liability claims.  There was substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict of liability on those theories since Monsanto marketed Roundup as safe for ordinary use when in fact it was not and there was substantial evidence to show that Monsanto knew Roundup wasn’t safe for such use.  The trial court did not err in allowing husband’s and wife’s claims to be heard in a single trial, as it instructed the jury to consider them separately.  The trial court did not err in admitting evidence that the IBT tests on which the EPA based its approval of Roundup were faked.  The testimony was admissible to show Monsanto knew the EPA approval was based on false data and thus to prove malice for the award of punitive damages.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing actual and punitive damages, as a condition of not ordering a new trial.  The plaintiffs’ were elderly, a fact the trial court could take into account in determining the appropriate amount of compensatory damages.  Punitive damages at a 4 to 1 ratio were constitutionally permissible in this case given the reprehensibility of Monsanto’s conduct.