In the United States, pesticide safety labeling is determined at the federal level. However, the distribution, sale and use of pesticides takes place within a multi-tiered regulatory framework in which a pesticide approved at the federal level may be subject to stricter use conditions imposed by state and local jurisdictions, which are often first to ban or restrict the sale or use of a pesticide when any question of product safety is raised, regardless of merit. The number of state and local jurisdictions capable of enacting some form of restriction on the use of a pesticide creates a minefield for litigants who must deal with the specter that restrictions not based on the scientific determinations of the agencies tasked with evaluating their products will nevertheless be put forward as affirmative evidence that those products are unsafe.

The appropriate litigation strategy for dealing with evidence of bans or restrictions depends first and foremost on how the evidence is being used. Evidence of bans or restrictions at the state and local level may be used to undermine conclusions at the federal level, creating misimpressions about the degree to which governmental entities agree about a product's safety. Parties and their experts also may seek to rely on the fact that a governmental entity has banned or restricted the use of a product as evidence that the product causes the alleged harm despite the different standards that apply to regulatory or political bans and restrictions and the burden of proof for causation in tort litigation.