Senate committee advances bill making EPA pesticide label the state's 'duty to warn' standard

The Kentucky Senate Agriculture Committee voted 9'to'4 to advance Senate Bill 199, which would recognize an EPA-approved pesticide label as satisfying the state's duty-to-warn in product-liability actions, supporters said.

Sponsor Senator Howell told the committee the measure is intended to prevent conflicting state warnings and preserve access to crop-protection tools. "My bill simply tries to establish that the EPA labeling satisfies the duty to warn in Kentucky state law cases," he said, while retaining a narrow exception if a manufacturer "knew something and didn't disclose it."

Supporters framed the bill as an economic safeguard. Kyle Kelly of the Kentucky Farm Bureau said the policy reflects grassroots member action to protect long-used, EPA-approved chemistries from being removed from the market by litigation. Representative Ryan Bivens, a full-time farmer, cautioned that losing certain chemistries would force widespread tillage, raise production costs and could render portions of current acreage unusable for no-till farming.

Forest and natural-resources witnesses said glyphosate and similar herbicides are essential for controlling invasive understory species and enabling sustainable timber harvests. "A well researched herbicide that is labeled for forestry use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency," consulting forester Christopher Will told the committee, and a working forest owner warned losing those tools could harm a roughly $19,000,000,000 statewide forest economy, affecting bourbon and flooring supply chains.

Opponents said the bill, as drafted, risks insulating manufacturers from accountability. Paul Kelly of the Kentucky Justice Association said litigation over products such as glyphosate has revealed internal documents showing manufacturers'conduct, and he warned that the bill could leave victims without a remedy unless the EPA itself conclusively finds a manufacturer "knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented or destroyed material information." Kelly noted there are tens of thousands of EPA-registered pesticides and questioned whether the agency has the resources or authority to police every potential concealment issue.

Asked about the scope of the measure, Elizabeth Burns Thompson of the Modern Ag Alliance described the bill as a "pesticide clarity" measure and emphasized that the goal is to ensure that safety disclosures are uniform. She acknowledged that Bayer is one of the Modern Ag Alliance's founding partners when senators pressed about funding and conflicts of interest.

Committee members split along familiar lines. Supporters repeatedly cited practical farming needs and the role of validated federal labels in avoiding a patchwork of state warnings; critics said the bill, as written, could reduce incentives to innovate safer products and could diminish legal recourse for people allegedly harmed by a product.

After brief debate and questions, the committee voted to advance the bill by a 9'to'4 margin. Several senators said the sponsor had pledged to work with stakeholders on specific wording after the hearing.

The committee adjourned without further public comment.