Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pesticide Labeling Preemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill declaring EPA- or commissioner‑approved pesticide labels sufficient for state actions
Summary
The committee approved an amendment and then moved HB424 to do pass. Sponsors said the bill codifies that a pesticide label approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the state commissioner satisfies state warning‑label requirements, responding to recent labeling disputes over glyphosate products.
The Agriculture & Consumer Affairs Committee approved an amendment and voted to advance HB424, a bill that would make an EPA- or state-commissioner‑approved pesticide label a sufficient warning for state‑law purposes. Sponsors said the bill aims to prevent state or local labeling requirements that would go beyond federal pesticide-labeling standards.
Representative Meeks, presenting the bill, framed it as protecting farmers’ access to tools and creating regulatory certainty. He said the measure treats a pesticide “that is registered with the commissioner or the Environmental Protection Agency … and displaying a label that has been approved by the EPA … as a sufficient warning label for the purposes of any action they commence.” Meeks cited the federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and recent litigation and labeling disputes involving glyphosate products as the background for the proposal.
Scientists and industry groups testified in favor. Elizabeth Burns Thompson of Modern Ag Alliance said the bill provides “certainty” and protects farmers’ toolboxes; Dr. Craig Lewallen, a toxicologist representing crop‑science groups, described the EPA registration and reevaluation process and noted that FIFRA contains preemption provisions covering labeling and packaging. Will Bentley of the Georgia Agribusiness Council, Adam Balfour of the Georgia Farm Bureau and Brian Toler of the Georgia Urban Ag Council also testified in support.
Members approved a technical amendment to correct a statutory cross‑reference in the bill (changing a cited section number in the draft), then voted to do pass the measure. The author said the bill does not provide immunity to manufacturers from other legal processes; instead, it addresses labeling requirements and expectations under federal and state registration systems.
Next steps: the committee approved the technical amendment and moved the bill forward; sponsors and proponents emphasized that EPA registrations are living documents subject to reevaluation and that states and EPA have defined roles under FIFRA.
