Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves bill limiting failure-to-warn lawsuits against pesticide makers
Summary
The Tennessee Senate passed Senate Bill 5 27 on third and final consideration, limiting state failure-to-warn liability for pesticide manufacturers when products comply with federal labeling requirements.
The Tennessee Senate passed Senate Bill 5 27 on third and final consideration after several hours of debate, approving language that restricts liability tied to federal pesticide labeling.
Supporters, led on the floor by sponsor Senator Stevens, said the bill clarifies that compliance with EPA-mandated labeling under federal law negates a state failure-to-warn claim. "The bill does not prevent anyone from suing. It does limit the liability in the event that there is a claim related to the label," Stevens said during debate.
Opponents said the change would unfairly shield manufacturers from accountability for products they say cause cancer or other injuries. "This is a very, very bad idea," Senator Campbell said. "Tennesseans do not want this, and we owe it to Tennesseans to represent their health and their interest and their ability to defend themselves against harmful chemicals."
The Senate debate focused on how federal regulation interacts with state tort law. Sponsors pointed to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registration and labeling process, noting that pesticide registrations are subject to review (the floor referenced a 15-year mandatory re‑review) and that label content is governed by federal law. Opponents raised scientific and public‑health concerns and cited large civil verdicts in other states tied to allegations about chemical harms.
Senators also discussed differences between consumer and commercial pesticide formulations and whether the bill would affect products sold at retail. Senator Stevens said consumer formulations differ from some agricultural or commercial formulations and that the bill targets failure-to-warn claims tied to federal label compliance rather than every possible legal theory against a manufacturer.
The Senate approved the measure by recorded tally: 21 ayes and 7 nays. The bill passed as amended and the motion to reconsider was tabled.
What happened next: The bill was declared passed on the Senate floor and will proceed per legislative process. The Senate exchange underscored that any future legal claims against manufacturers could still rely on theories other than failure to warn, such as design or manufacturing defect, according to sponsors and several senators' explanations.
Ending: The vote followed long, often emotional floor debate about public‑health risks, federal labeling authority and the scope of state civil liability. The statute as passed narrows one specific theory of recovery tied to federally mandated labels; other legal avenues remain available, senators noted.
