North Dakota committee hears bill saying EPA-approved pesticide labels satisfy duty to warn

BISMARCK, N.D. — The Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee on Friday heard testimony on House Bill 1318, a measure that would add a state product‑liability provision saying an EPA‑approved pesticide label (under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) or a label consistent with EPA’s most recent human‑health assessment is “sufficient” to meet North Dakota’s duty‑to‑warn standard.

Proponents said the bill would provide certainty for producers and manufacturers that follow federal labeling requirements, avoid duplicative state labeling, and reduce costly litigation that can remove tools from farm fields. “If the label was followed and … the label’s consistent with everything stated in the chapter, it raises the bar on bringing lawsuits,” said Representative Jared Heggert, sponsor of HB 1318.

Supporters included North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goring and representatives of commodity groups and agribusiness. Goring told the committee that litigation over glyphosate in other states showed companies could be unable to fully defend themselves and that federal labeling requirements set by EPA are intended to reflect the scientific record. “The label didn’t say it causes cancer. But EPA and the federal law will not allow them to put something on there that’s not true,” Goring said. Industry witnesses argued state recognition of EPA‑approved labels keeps farmers’ tools available and avoids a patchwork of state requirements.

Opponents, including the North Dakota Association for Justice, the North Dakota Wildlife Federation and other advocacy groups, warned the bill as drafted could foreclose state remedies when a label is unlawful or misbranded. Jackie Hall of the Association for Justice said the bill would allow manufacturers to “point to the EPA approved label to avoid accountability” even when, she testified, the company misled regulators. Several opponents asked for an amendment preserving state causes of action for claims equivalent to federal misbranding standards.

Other witnesses sought to draw distinctions between different legal claims: several agricultural witnesses explained that application‑level liability for off‑label use or for failure to follow personal‑protective equipment requirements would remain available under other statutes. Opponents and some neutral witnesses said the draft language (referencing a “sufficient warning” under state law) could be read broadly, and asked that the committee explicitly preserve private‑law claims that track FIFRA misbranding standards.

No committee action on the bill was recorded at the hearing.

Supporters emphasized federal preemption and the scientific review that underlies EPA registration; opponents asked the committee to add language allowing state court claims when a label is false or misleading under federal law. Testimony and questions repeatedly cited glyphosate litigation, EPA reregistration processes and distinctions between product‑design/manufacture claims and failure‑to‑warn claims.