Senate Bill 199 takes effect July 15 after lawmakers overrode Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto, creating liability protections for pesticide companies whose warning labels comply with federal EPA requirements.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A new Kentucky law set to take effect July 15 will limit certain lawsuits against pesticide manufacturers when their product labels have been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Senate Bill 199, passed by the Kentucky Legislature earlier this year, says pesticide companies cannot be sued in the state for failing to warn consumers about specific health risks, including cancer, if the product’s warning label meets EPA standards.
Supporters say the law gives farmers and manufacturers regulatory consistency and protects access to crop-protection tools. Critics argue it weakens state-level consumer protections and could make it harder for Kentuckians to bring claims involving pesticide-related health risks.
The measure became law after Republican lawmakers overrode Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto.
The law makes Kentucky the third state to adopt a pesticide liability shield, following similar measures in Georgia and North Dakota. Comparable proposals have also been considered in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Florida and Iowa.
The issue is closely tied to the national debate over glyphosate-based products such as Roundup, which has faced thousands of lawsuits alleging links to cancer. Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018 and inherited much of that litigation. Plaintiffs have argued that Roundup’s glyphosate warnings were inadequate, while pesticide companies and agricultural groups have argued that EPA-approved labels should establish a uniform national standard.
Under Kentucky’s new law, an EPA-approved label is treated as a “sufficient warning” for purposes of many state failure-to-warn claims.
The law does contain an exception. It does not apply if the EPA determines that a manufacturer “knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed material information regarding the human health risks of such pesticide in order to obtain or maintain approval of its label by the EPA.”
Farmers who support the measure say pesticides remain necessary for protecting crops from insects, fungus and weeds.
Matt Gajdzik, who owns and operates Mulberry Orchard in Shelbyville, said pesticides help protect both produce and trees.
“When we’re applying a fungicide or an insecticide, we’re trying to protect the fruit and also the tree,” Gajdzik told WHAS11.
Gajdzik said the tools are especially important as peach season approaches and the orchard prepares for summer crowds.
“[The peaches and apples] are looking really good this year. They’re good and clean. And we wouldn’t be able to do that in Kentucky without the right pesticides to help us with that,” Gajdzik said. “We need all the tools that we can in order to produce that safe, high-quality food.”
Beshear criticized the bill before lawmakers overrode his veto, saying it appeared to protect an entire industry from liability.
“I haven’t seen a bill like this before, where they’re just trying to say this whole industry is exempt,” Beshear said during a June 4 Team Kentucky news conference. “All I’m asking — I’m not trying to go after the industry — is make a product that doesn’t kill people. And guess what, you don’t have liability if you have a safe product.”
The bill divided some lawmakers. Most Republicans supported it, but several GOP members joined Democrats in opposing the measure.
Senate President Robert Stivers, a Republican who supported the override, said companies should not face inconsistent state rules after receiving federal approval.
“Once you get basically the seal of approval from the governing entity that you’ve done all you can do and it is safe, then how can you be held liable,” Stivers told WHAS11 in May. “You have to have consistent rules. You can’t have patchwork type of rules and regulations.”
Dr. Aruni Bhatnagar, a professor of medicine at the University of Louisville, said some pesticides have been linked to cancers through circumstantial evidence. He said companies should be protected from baseless claims but warned that states may need a way to update health warnings when medical research changes.
“The issue is whether the labeling by EPA is sufficient. Whether that labeling is the floor or the ceiling,” Bhatnagar told WHAS11. “There is this wide debate that are we making it difficult for health claims to be made, in favor of the pesticide manufacturers.”
Gajdzik said he trusts the products he uses because he also feeds the food grown at his orchard to his own children.
“We believe it’s been proven safe,” Gajdzik said of the pesticides used on his crops. “[We have] a good, healthy source of food. If I thought it was going to harm my kids, I wouldn’t give to somebody else’s either.”
The national legal fight over pesticide warnings could shift further this summer when the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether companies can be held liable under state law for failing to include cancer warnings not required by the EPA.
Kentucky lawmakers acted before that ruling, meaning the state’s new law will already set a standard for many pesticide warning claims once it takes effect.
Supporters say SB 199 protects farmers from losing access to products they rely on and prevents conflicting warning requirements across states. Opponents say it gives pesticide manufacturers too much protection and could block consumers from holding companies accountable in state courts.
For now, Kentucky’s new rule places EPA-approved pesticide labeling at the center of liability disputes, making the federal label the controlling warning standard in most cases covered by the law.
Original article
Comments