Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pesticide Regulation Labeling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reopens hearing on pesticide-labeling bill as stakeholders negotiate amendments
Summary
House Bill 1318 (pesticide labeling) was reopened for additional testimony. Agricultural groups urged protections tied to EPA label determinations; trial attorneys sought preserved legal remedies. Stakeholders proposed clarifying amendments limiting the bill's effect to health-and-safety duty-to-warn claims; committee deferred final action.
The Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee reopened testimony on House Bill 1318, a bill focused on pesticide labeling and the legal effect of federal label determinations. The committee heard additional supporters, opponents and clarification from industry and legal representatives but took no final action.
Sarah Lovas, director with the North Dakota Grain Growers Association and an agronomist, testified in support of HB 1318 and described the bill as aimed at whether the pesticide label is sufficient for warning the public, not as a judgment about individual active ingredients. She emphasized that "the label is the law" and that EPA registration and labeling are the primary processes for evaluating pesticide safety. Lovas also described toxicity comparisons (LD50) to explain relative acute toxicity and said vacated label actions by the EPA have in recent years created uncertainty for producers.
Opposition testimony from Jackie Hall of the North Dakota Association for Justice said the bill's current wording—especially use of the term "sufficient"—could foreclose legitimate legal claims for individuals who believe a label is misbranded or that a product caused harm. Hall requested clearer cross-reference to FIFRA (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and preservation of causes of action for misbranding and related claims.
Matt Purdue of the North Dakota Farmers Union and Peril Grossman of the Soybean Growers Association supported an amendment offered to narrow the bill's scope to health-and-safety duty-to-warn claims; Purdue said his amendment "clarifies the scope of this bill is specific to health and safety." Bayer attorney Lacey Anderson told the committee the bill does not provide blanket immunity and that other causes of action (fraud, crop damage, product defects) would remain available; she said the amendment from Purdue would be acceptable to industry.
Committee members asked whether the bill would create blanket immunity and discussed pending legislation in other states. Senator Weston and others expressed concern about protecting public access to courts while also preventing uncertain, last-minute label changes from disrupting agricultural operations. The committee closed the hearing for the session and said it would consider amendments and return to the bill in a later meeting.
