Senate ag committee advances bill saying EPA-approved pesticide labels satisfy state warning rules

House Bill 1318, a proposal that would make an EPA-approved pesticide label sufficient to satisfy North Dakota’s state law requirements for warnings and labeling, drew hours of testimony Wednesday and was advanced by the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee after an amendment narrowing the measure was adopted.

The bill’s proponents told the committee that deferring to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on label language protects farmers from lawsuits that can lead to vacated labels and lost pesticide options. Opponents, including trial-lawyer and consumer-advocacy groups, said the bill would limit injured parties’ ability to hold manufacturers accountable and could shift liability onto retailers and employers.

Supporters argued the measure preserves regulatory uniformity and recognizes EPA’s scientific review. “The label is the law,” agronomist Sarah Hall Levitz testified, saying the EPA’s registration process and public dockets produce comprehensive review and that “not to follow the label is breaking the law.” Mark Barrons, appearing for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, described the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and told the committee the EPA’s labeling process is intended to reflect expert, regulatory review.

Bayer medical-affairs lead Dr. Liza Lockwood told the committee she is “an emergency physician and a medical toxicologist” and summarized her view that regulatory assessments have not shown glyphosate causes cancer, saying international regulatory bodies that review exposure and risk have concluded no association.

Opponents urged caution. Jackie Hall, executive director of the North Dakota Association for Justice, said the bill “would fundamentally alter this established accountability” and argued that language in the current draft could grant manufacturers immunity for complying with EPA labeling even if the product is misbranded. Hall and others proposed an amendment to preserve a path to sue if a manufacturer violates federal misbranding standards.

Researchers and clinicians who opposed the bill also warned that newer studies postdating EPA reviews could change the scientific picture and that plaintiffs should retain a route to bring claims when substantial evidence emerges. Dr. Jake Schmitz and other health professionals cited systematic reviews and epidemiologic research they said indicate elevated cancer risks in populations near intensive pesticide use.

Committee action: the panel adopted an amendment that adds language clarifying that an EPA label “shall be sufficient to satisfy any requirements for a warning or labeling regarding health or safety under this chapter.” After debate, the committee voted to advance HB 1318 as amended. Senator Meerdal was identified as the committee member who will carry the bill to the floor.

Why it matters: proponents said the bill protects farmers’ pesticide options and avoids state-by-state patchworks of labels, while opponents said it narrows legal accountability and could leave sellers and employers exposed when manufacturers avoid responsibility.

Votes and next steps: the committee’s roll calls recorded members on both sides; the committee advanced the bill to the full Senate for further consideration. The bill may still be amended on the floor and faces additional committee and chamber votes.

(Reporting note: testimony and quoted material in this article come from the committee hearing transcript of March 21, 2025.)