Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Pesticide Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes bill limiting certain manufacturer liability for pesticide labels; supporters say it protects supply, opponents warn of consumer risk
Summary
The House passed Senate Bill 144 to assert that pesticide labeling regulated by the EPA governs failure-to-warn claims in Georgia. Supporters said the change preserves critical crop protection tools and helps keep production local; opponents said it could shield manufacturers from responsibility and weaken consumer and public-health protections.
ATLANTA — The Georgia House on Thursday voted to pass Senate Bill 144, a measure that narrows state liability for pesticide manufacturers by stating that, for purposes of failure-to-warn claims, liability should generally rest with the federal labeling and registration decisions made by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Supporters, including leaders of the House Agriculture and Consumer Affairs Committee, said the measure clarifies legal standards, keeps critical agriculture chemistries available to Georgia farmers and preserves the state’s role in supporting the food-supply chain. Opponents said the bill would hamper injured consumers’ ability to seek warnings-based claims and could reduce state- or local-level safeguards if federal action is delayed or limited.
The bill’s author and committee supporters framed SB 144 as limited in scope: it addresses claims tied to the label language approved under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and does not absolve manufacturers from liability for other kinds of misconduct or defective products. Supporters said the federal EPA, which registers pesticides and approves labels, is the appropriate authority to set labeling standards.
Opponents, including Representative Carla Drenner and others who spoke for consumer-protection and health concerns during the committee debate and on the House floor, said the bill is part of a broader national push by manufacturers to limit liability. Drenner and Representative Ramon argued that narrowing state failure-to-warn claims would make it harder for victims and communities to obtain timely warnings if industry or federal processes do not promptly act on emerging science.
The House recorded the vote on SB 144 at 101 yeas and 58 nays.
Key points from debate: - Supporters said SB 144 preserves access to agricultural chemistries that growers rely on to control pests, protect yields and keep food costs stable; they described FIFRA and EPA review as the controlling safety framework for labels. - Opponents said the bill could prevent timely disclosure to consumers about new risks not yet reflected on EPA-approved labels and stressed the importance of state-level and civil remedies to protect public health. - Lawmakers raised procedural concerns about federal regulatory capacity and the pace of EPA review, with several members noting that an emergency EPA action can remove a product from the market but ordinary reviews can take months or longer.
What happens next: SB 144 passed the House and will proceed to the governor. Proponents said the bill would help keep domestically manufactured chemistries on market shelves; opponents said they would continue to track federal regulatory action and possible litigation.
Speakers: Representative Steven Meeks (sponsor in the House committee), Chairman Robert Dickey (Agriculture and Consumer Affairs), Representative Carla Drenner (opponent), Representative Ramon (opponent), Representative Beth Camp (support), Representative Shaw Blackman (committee references).
