NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — A bill that would give pesticide companies more legal protections regarding civil lawsuits over labeling is moving through the legislature despite Republicans and Democrats having different interpretations of the proposal.
If the proposed legislation is passed, pesticide manufacturers and sellers would not be held liable for civil action related to the labeling of the pesticide — including failure to warn suits — as long as the product had a label approved by the Environmental Protection Agency under federal law when it was sold.
Some believe that would mean people would be barred from suing pesticide companies if their products made someone sick or caused other harm, as long as the product had an EPA-approved label.
“That language blocks any claim under number one: failure to warn, number two: negligence [and] number three: defective design because all those theories of recovery hinge on what the label contains,” Danny Ellis, president of the Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association said.
However, others argue that because the EPA reviews and approves the information contained on the labels of pesticide products, companies shouldn’t be held liable for failure to warn if the product has an EPA-approved label.
In addition, one farmer testified to lawmakers in a Senate Committee hearing Wednesday that farmers and consumers end up paying for the lawsuits brought against pesticide companies.
“The farmers ultimately pay the cost of this litigation. Through the attrition of farmers, your constituents will ultimately pay it, and I would submit they’re paying it right now in increased food costs,” Stefan Maupin, executive director of the Tennessee Soybean Council, said.
However, Democrats criticized the bill’s sponsor, Sen. John Stevens (R-Huntingdon). Stevens told lawmakers — after being asked — that representatives with Farm Bureau the agricultural association and Bayer, the company owned by the agricultural giant Monsanto, asked him to carry the bill.
“I just think it’s very corrupt to bring a bill here that his own constituents haven’t even asked for,” Sen. Charlane Oliver (D-Nashville) said. “It’s making it easier for companies to not be held liable for the products that they produce and it’s making it harder for people who are going to be harmed by this, who potentially get cancer from these products, to be able to sue them.”
Republicans said that’s not what the bill would do.
“There are companies out there that are being sued because the label was inaccurate,” House majority leader, William Lamberth (R-Portland) said. “It did not have proper warnings on it based on one study from another country. So if a label is not on there, that in itself should not be a lawsuit. If someone has gotten cancer from that, and they can prove that in a court of law, there’s nothing about that bill that would affect that lawsuit. It’s just about the labeling.”
The bill is going through the committee process on both the House and Senate sides.
Bayer provided the following statement to News 2:
“Bayer stands behind the safety of glyphosate – backed by the EPA and all leading regulators around the world. It also supports legislation that would help keep crop protection tools in the hands of American farmers.
Proposed legislation at the federal and state level – such as bills being considered in a number of states – would simply help ensure that any pesticide registered with the EPA – and sold under a label consistent with the EPA’s own determinations – is sufficient to satisfy requirements for health and safety warnings.
These bills are important because they reinforce the authority of the EPA’s rigorous, science-backed labeling decisions, so that when the EPA determines what a crop protection label should say, that decision is consistent and reliable for everyone.
The notion of these bills – including HB 0809 being a blanket immunity shield is a false narrative positioned by the Litigation Industry as a distortion of the truth. No company should be afforded blanket immunity. Plaintiffs regularly allege various causes of action/claims including design defect, Breach of Warranty and others. These are different than failure to warn.”
