House committee advances bill that ties pesticide liability to EPA-approved labels

Representative Jerry Schillinger opened testimony for House Bill 522, telling the House Agriculture Committee the bill is intended to "maintain access to products for farmers that have gone through years long testing and review process and obtained a label from the EPA."

Supporters from across Montana's agricultural sector urged passage. Karli Johnson of the Montana Farm Bureau Federation described pesticide labels as the product of a lengthy federal approval process and said the bill would codify that the label satisfies a duty to warn. "Everything in that label has to be scientifically proven," Johnson said, summarizing how manufacturers and the Environmental Protection Agency review data under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

Agribusiness groups, crop consultants and growers argued the law would protect farmers and local retailers from lawsuits that, they said, threaten access to crop-protection tools necessary for conservation tillage and modern production. "If important crop protection products are removed from the marketplace, we as farmers will have to make major changes to our operations," testified Jess Bandel, a fifth-generation farmer who urged the committee to pass the bill.

Opponents included trial attorneys, conservation groups and public-health advocates who said the bill would remove an important path to accountability for manufacturers. Attorney Al Smith, representing opponents, told the committee that the bill is not about retail misuse of a pesticide but about manufacturers failing to disclose safety risks on labels: "What we're really talking about are people who use the chemicals as directed...but what they didn't tell them on the warning label was that contact with the skin can cause cancer."

Peter Dudley of Montana Audubon and Ben Catton of the Montana Environmental Information Center stressed public-health and environmental concerns, citing studies and higher exposure markers in some populations. Kelly Ryerson cited an EPA advisory panel review and said scientific disagreement exists; others urged caution about restricting legal recourse for people who claim harm.

Agency and process details were discussed. Witnesses described the federal registration process (EPA review under FIFRA), state registration and the availability of product labels; Anna Kecskes, general counsel for the Montana Department of Agriculture, told the committee she was not aware of litigation against the state tied to these products and could not speak to suits against individual farmers.

Committee members pressed witnesses on practical consequences, including whether the bill would leave Montanans unable to join nationwide litigation and whether retailers and applicators remain protected. Opponents pointed to other states where similar proposals faced rejection. Sponsor Schillinger and proponents said the bill leaves other liabilities (such as defective-product claims or failures to register) intact and only clarifies the duty to warn when labels and state registration are in place.

Executive action: The committee recorded a roll-call outcome in executive action: House Bill 522 passed the House Agriculture Committee on a 10-7 vote and was reported out of committee for further legislative consideration.

Why this matters: The bill addresses the legal standard for warning and potential liability across the pesticide supply chain (manufacturers, marketers, dealers, distributors, retailers and sellers). Supporters say the change preserves access to crop-protection tools and protects local sellers; opponents say it would limit access to justice for people who claim harm and could undercut state and local authority.

Next steps: With committee approval, the bill moves to the next phase of the legislative process.