Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pesticide Labeling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs pesticide‑labeling bill that declares EPA‑approved labels meet state duty to warn
Summary
House Bill 1318 would make EPA‑approved pesticide labels the binding state standard for duty‑to‑warn claims; supporters from grower groups and applicators said the change would give legal and regulatory certainty, while the North Dakota Association for Justice proposed an amendment to ensure labels updated by EPA continue to apply automatically.
The House Agriculture Committee voted to recommend passage of House Bill 1318, which would state that a pesticide’s label, as approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), satisfies North Dakota’s duty to warn or any common‑law duty to warn.
Why it matters: Supporters said the bill provides regulatory clarity and helps prevent court rulings or temporary label vacaturs from disrupting agricultural operations during the growing season. They argued that the federal label follows a rigorous scientific review and that state law should recognize an EPA‑approved label as the controlling duty‑to‑warn standard.
Supporters and testimony: The bill sponsor introduced the measure and testimony in support came from a broad coalition of agricultural stakeholders, including the North Dakota Corn Growers, the North Dakota Grain Growers Association, the North Dakota Soybean Growers Association, the Modern Ag Alliance, ag consultants, and the North Dakota Farm Bureau. Testimony emphasized that certified applicators are trained to read and follow standardized labels and that sudden changes or vacaturs of registrations can leave producers without tools they rely on during the season.
Opposition and suggested amendment: The North Dakota Association for Justice testified in opposition as written and proposed an amendment to ensure the statute operates with current label language if EPA modifies, revises, or otherwise updates a label. The association argued the bill should not become a static, point‑in‑time statute that fails to reflect later federal changes; it said an explicit cross‑reference to updated EPA language would make the statute durable.
Committee action: Representative Mehring moved for a due‑pass recommendation. After discussion and questions, including from members who sought assurance that federal review processes and label updates would be respected, the committee approved a due‑pass recommendation by roll call vote.
Ending: The committee’s recommendation reflects broad agricultural support and a narrow but vocal procedural concern from trial‑lawyer representatives; the committee did not adopt the Association for Justice’s amendment during the hearing, though members discussed possible future adjustments.
