Tennessee committee hears hours of testimony on bill limiting failure-to-warn claims tied to EPA pesticide labels

The Judiciary Full Committee discussed House Bill 809, legislation that would limit Tennessee civil failure-to-warn claims against pesticide manufacturers when a federal agency prevents a registrant from placing a particular warning on a product label. The committee heard expert legal and regulatory testimony, farmer testimony about agricultural impacts, and multiple public comments from residents who said pesticide exposure had harmed family members. After extended debate and public comment, members voted to roll the bill to the second calendar of 2026.

The measure, brought up as item 1 on the committee agenda, drew technical testimony about the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and EPA registration practice. Committee members questioned an expert called to explain FIFRA’s regulatory duties and registrant responsibilities. The expert told the committee that registrants (companies seeking pesticide registration) are required to provide factual information to EPA and that the agency conducts its own review of scientific literature beyond what registrants submit. He said EPA can pursue civil and criminal enforcement where statutes or regulations are violated, and he described the pesticide registration as a “living registration” with ongoing obligations for registrants to supply new adverse information.

Several lawmakers pressed on legal implications: whether a Tennessee statute could or would remove a state-law negligence or failure-to-warn cause of action. The expert repeatedly said those legal questions were outside his regulatory expertise; legal interpretations, he said, would be for attorneys and the courts. Committee members noted federal appellate splits over whether FIFRA preempts state-law tort claims and asked whether the panel should wait for a U.S. Supreme Court decision resolving that split.

Farmers and agricultural representatives told the committee their operations rely heavily on herbicides and other pesticides. Farmer John Litz said long-standing no‑till practices and erosion controls depend on having access to certain products; he warned loss of access could reduce output and require a return to intensive tilling. Farm-industry witnesses said the legislation mirrors a law recently enacted in Georgia and argued it preserves the status quo by clarifying that a product registered under FIFRA and valid at the federal level should not produce state tort liability where the federal label controls.

Other witnesses and public commenters disputed that framing. Several people described serious health concerns they attribute to pesticide exposure, mentioning cancer and reproductive harms. A veteran who testified that he had been diagnosed with testicular cancer urged members to oppose the bill and said settlements against major manufacturers showed real harms. Other commenters raised national-security concerns about foreign pesticide manufacturers and listed country‑level statistics for pesticide production and registrations.

Committee members asked office of legal services staff about the amendment the panel previously adopted (House Amendment 6,945) and whether the current draft includes the word “immunity.” Legal staff told the panel that the draft amendment does not use the word “immunity” and that the statutory language in the amendment would deem an EPA‑ and state‑registered label a sufficient warning for purposes of a civil duty-to-warn claim. Counsel noted that, as written, the amendment could displace contrary state law, and that whether the change would permanently bar certain claims would be a determination for the courts.

After nearly three hours of witness testimony and follow-up questions from members, Representative Doggett moved — and members seconded — to roll House Bill 809 to the second calendar of 2026 to allow further study. The motion passed by voice vote; the chair announced the bill was rolled to the second calendar of 2026.

The hearing combined regulatory explanation, agricultural economic concerns and personal accounts of illness. Committee members repeatedly asked lawyers and regulatory experts to clarify where Tennessee law would end and federal regulation under FIFRA would begin; witnesses emphasized some disagreements are legal questions for the courts rather than technical questions for EPA staff. The committee did not vote on the bill’s merits and instead gave members more time to gather additional input before substantive consideration.

Notes: The committee’s extended public-comment period included veterans, farmers, clinicians and residents describing instances of cancer, reproductive harm and community concern. Several members asked for additional briefing from the Office of Legal Services on the practical scope of the amendment language.