Tennessee committee advances bill limiting state lawsuits over pesticide labels; 12-4 vote

The House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee voted 12–4 to advance House Bill 809 to the Judiciary Committee after more than an hour of public testimony on the bill’s effect on pesticide litigation.

The bill, described by its sponsor as a narrow measure to protect companies that follow EPA labeling rules, would bar certain state civil claims tied directly to pesticide labeling. Supporters told the committee the measure is needed to preserve farmers’ access to crop‑protection tools; opponents said it would remove victims’ ability to seek redress when labels fail to disclose harms.

Representative Grills, the member who presented the bill, said the measure "provides protection to companies that apply and receive a label through EPA's FIFRA" and emphasized that once the EPA grants an approved label, companies cannot change it without violating federal law. He said the bill aims to prevent suits based on label content that the federal statute and EPA preclude.

Several people testified for and against the bill during the committee’s public comment period. Casey Pistona, an MTSU social work student, said in opposition, "Please oppose house bill 8 0 9," and described long‑term harms she attributed to corporate pollution in her hometown of Anniston, Alabama. Tiffany Carpenter, a plaintiff’s mass‑tort attorney from Memphis, told the committee the bill "does not protect farmers" and argued it would "protect Bayer" and other manufacturers by limiting failure‑to‑warn and related claims.

Kevin Hensley of the Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation told the panel the federal government controls pesticide labels and that manufacturers are being sued for risks regulators restrict them from posting. "This legislation is very narrowly tailored specific to claims around the label and still allows for claims around Tennessee products liability cases in title 29 of Tennessee law and common law," Hensley said.

Other farmer witnesses, including George McDonald of Smith County and Johnny Dodson of Dyer and Lauderdale counties, described pesticides as essential tools for reducing erosion and protecting yields and urged support for the bill. Several committee members spoke in favor, citing concerns about maintaining domestic agricultural production; others, including Representative Jones and Representative Behn, opposed the bill on the grounds it prioritizes corporate liability protections over Tennesseans’ right to sue for injury.

A motion to move the bill passed; the clerk reported the committee vote as 12 ayes and 4 nays. House Bill 809 will now go to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration.

Votes at a glance: - House Bill 809 — Advanced to Judiciary Committee; committee vote 12 ayes, 4 nays.

The committee hearing included multiple speakers and written materials on both sides. No amendments to the bill were adopted in the committee on this date.

Funding and legal context mentioned in testimony focused on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and EPA labeling requirements; the bill’s language as presented ties state civil‑liability limits to federally approved labels.

The committee rolled remaining calendar items to its next meeting and adjourned.