Ongoing Debates: Review of Legislation Before Many States

Image of crops being sprayed in field. Image by Tamina Miller via Flickr

This is not a substitute for legal advice.  See here for the site’s reposting policy.

If you have been following the national agricultural news lately beyond discussions on policy, there has been a focus on states’ legislatures considering “Crop Protection” legislation. You might wonder what this legislation is focused on protecting and whether it benefits you as hay and forage producers. The laws protect producers who utilize federally approved pesticides from being sued later for concerns over the use of those pesticides. This liability protection would also extend to companies producing and selling federally approved pesticides. At the same time, a reading of the legislation leaves the impression that the protections would also extend to applicators.

We have all seen the news of large settlements from users of federally approved pesticides claiming linkages between their use and cancer. The biggest of these lawsuits is the Roundup litigation. To date, Bayer has paid out roughly $10 billion to settle claims that Roundup has caused cancer. At the same time, class actions have been filed against Sygenta, the manufacturer of Paraquat, for claims that the product causes Parkinson’s Disease. Included in that lawsuit are Chevron, the former manufacturer of Paraquat, and FMC Corporation, a distributor of Paraquat. Trials in that class action are expected to begin later this year. Finally, AMVAC Chemical Corporation has been sued due to claims that Dacthal (DCPA) has caused birth defects. In late 2024, the EPA issued an Emergency Stop Use Order for DCPA due to the potential health claims. This is just a small list of litigation that may grow over time, limiting the ability to utilize pesticides in an operation.

The debate on Crop Protection legislation concerns this type of litigation. If passed by a state legislature and signed into law by the governor, the legislation would limit liability for users and manufacturers of federally approved pesticides. Under the legislation being proposed in several states, as long as the federally approved pesticide includes a label with the most recent human health assessment required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) or a label containing consistent with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) carcingenicity classification for the pesticide required under FIFRA this would be a sufficient warning label. Under the legislation, this warning label would then be enough to meet the duty to warn under state law. This would severely limit the ability for users to sue later for alleged health issues (such as cancer or Parkinson’s Disease).

Federal law under FIFRA requires the EPA to review product labels for all pesticides sold in the U.S. These labels usually contain information on handling, storing, and using pesticides safely. At the same time, it includes the ingredients, safety equipment needed, environmental concerns, health concerns, and other information related to the pesticide. At the same time, states can have their labeling requirements for safely using the pesticides in those states, but state labeling requirements can not be more stringent than federal regulations. This Crop Protection legislation would find this federally approved label sufficient to warn and limit potential lawsuits.

This legislation has been signed into law in North Dakota, and as of the writing of this article, it has passed the Georgia legislature and has not been signed by the Governor. The legislation is currently before the legislatures in Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wyoming. This legislation could create additional protections for federally approved pesticide manufacturers and sellers, preventing future class action lawsuits that could limit their ability to utilize those pesticides in operations.