Subcommittee approves substitute for bill requiring retailers to label certain invasive plants; stakeholders say negotiated changes resolve prior concerns

The Agriculture Subcommittee approved a substituted version of House Bill 1941 requiring retailers who sell certain invasive plant species to display clear signage identifying those plants as invasive. The subcommittee voted to report the bill to the full committee with the substitute.

Delegate Seibold, the bill’s patron, told the subcommittee HB 1941 “amends the code of Virginia as it relates to invasive plant species and retail sales.” The substitute shifts statutory language (the patron described it as moving “the language from 10.1 over to 3.2”) and sets a delayed effective date of Jan. 1, 2026.

To address concerns raised last year, the substituted bill lists the affected species explicitly in the legislation instead of delegating the list to the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) educational list. Seibold said there are currently “39 species of invasive plants that pose a significant risk to Virginia's ecosystems” and that the Department of Conservation and Recreation estimates invasive species cause losses “as high as $1,000,000,000 annually in Virginia alone.” He told the committee the signage requirement is intended to be educational rather than a ban: “Requiring retailers that sell invasive plant species to post clear and informative signage is a fair way to mitigate this problem without imposing an outright ban.”

The substitute also includes drafting changes agreed with stakeholders: the signage will display plant scientific (Latin) names and common names when displayed in nurseries; a previously proposed $500 civil penalty was removed; the bill creates a work group to advise the commissioner on signage details; and the measure applies to plants intended for outdoor use.

Multiple environmental and industry organizations testified in support of the negotiated bill. Susan McLaughlin (online), a Virginia Master Naturalist, urged lawmakers to support the measure as an educational tool but cautioned that evidence of signage effectiveness is mixed and offered to submit written comments. Chris Layne of Blue Ridge PRISM described local eradication costs and projects; Jay Ford of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Kyle Hart of the National Parks Conservation Association voiced support, citing staff and volunteer burdens in public lands. Katie Hellabush of the Virginia Nursery and Landscape Association said the industry withdrew earlier opposition after stakeholders removed the civil penalty and created a work group; she clarified the bill applies to outdoor‑use invasives and that plants for indoor use (as raised by Delegate Webber) would not be affected.

During discussion Delegate Runyon said some nursery stakeholders in his region believe the list is “way too expansive” and warned that signage could depress retail sales and create downstream issues for wholesale growers. Delegate Seibold and supporters said the effective date and work group were negotiated at industry request to allow the trade time to adapt.

A motion to adopt the substitute was made, seconded and adopted. The clerk announced at the close of the roll that “House Bill 1941 reports with substitute 9‑2‑1.” The transcript does not provide an itemized roll‑call listing of each member’s vote in the room; the final clerk announcement is the recorded tally in the transcript.