By Tim Carpenter, Kansas Reflector
TOPEKA — The House agriculture committee endorsed a bill on pesticide warning labels that was alternatively described as commonsense regulatory relief for farmers and a measure shielding chemical manufacturers from liability in lawsuits.
Before advancing the bill Tuesday to the full House, Republicans and Democrats on the committee expressed confusion about what precisely the bill would accomplish. The whiplash of testimony from 14 opponents and 11 advocates of the bill in a public hearing last week didn’t dissolve the analytical haze.
“I’ve tried for several days to figure out what this bill is all about,” said Rep. Tobias Schlingensiepen, a Topeka Democrat on the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. “Obviously, there’s a lot of subtlety or we wouldn’t be having the kinds of questions we’re having. Why is this bill necessary now?”
Schlingensiepen proposed the committee table House Bill 2476, but the vote on that motion was 4-11 against placing it on a back burner.
Rep. Angel Roeser, R-Manhattan, said it was important the Legislature promptly declare Kansas abided by federal pesticide labeling standards for a range of products used to boost crop production or control weeds. She offered the successful motion to send the bill to the full House.
“It’s not a liability shield,” Roeser said. “I think people are using talking points to try and talk about an industry they’re not a part of. I think that’s wrong.”
Democratic Rep. Linda Featherston of Overland Park said there was no talking-point memo in front of her. She proposed an amendment, which was rejected by the committee, that would remove text a supporter of the bill argued would gut the attempt to shield companies from some lawsuits.
Rep. Gary White, R-Ashland, said he didn’t appreciate Featherston’s idea. “I just don’t see this as a friendly amendment,” he said.
Featherston said debate on the bill made one point clear: Opinion was fractured by diametrically opposing viewpoints.
Republican Rep. Doug Blex of Independence said he received many email messages about the bill and supported the measure despite writers sharing their “sky-is-falling” opinions.
Blex said he raised cattle and crops and probably used more farm chemicals on his no-till ground than he’d prefer. He said most producers understood fine print on pesticide labels, which might include information about potential harm to humans. As he scanned the House committee room at the Capitol, Blex said toxicity recommendations on labels were typically based on contact with a hypothetical 150-pound person.
“Most of those in this room are over that, so we can have a little more chemical than a lot of people, I think,” Blex said.
Zack Pistora, a lobbyist with the Kansas Sierra Club, said during a Jan. 21 public hearing on HB 2476 that comparable bills had been introduced in at least 12 states. He said bipartisan opposition to the legislation existed in Missouri, Iowa, Idaho, Florida and North Carolina. He urged the Kansas House committee to reject the bill.
“We are worried HB 2476 effectively shields pesticide companies from legal accountability, including personal injury lawsuits by offering legal immunity from any harm pesticides might cause to people or the environment,” Pistora said. “HB 2476 seems more about giving mega-chemical corporations a pass from facing case-by-case judicial assessments of inadequate warning labels and serious injuries that have resulted in millions of dollars in compensation and billions in settlements caused by harmful pesticides.”
He said the House bill would likely impair the opportunity for a secretary of the Kansas Department of Agriculture to evaluate pesticides and adopt restricted-use designations on those that had adverse impact on people or the environment.
“It’s important to remember many of the agrochemicals of concern, such as glyphosate, remain on the market and available for use,” Pistora said.
Callie Jill Denton, executive director of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association, said the bill was drafted to eliminate state rights and remedies for Kansans exposed to pesticides in a farm field, backyard garden or anywhere else. She said the bill was apparently aimed at advancing liability interests of Bayer, a German company, and ChemChina, which was controlled by the Communist government in China.
She said the Legislature should shelve the bill until the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion later this year in Monsanto v. Durnell, a case examining whether states could impose laws on warning labels more restrictive than a label approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Such cases fell into a category of “failure-to-warn” lawsuits, which was exemplified by the Missouri verdict in October 2023 awarding $1.2 million in damages to John Durnell. He contracted non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, alleged it was due to significant exposure to Roundup and successfully agued Monsanto was liable for failing to warn customers on an EPA-endorsed label of the product’s potential health risks.
In that case, Bayer-owned Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup, claimed EPA determined glyphosate wasn’t “likely to be carcinogenic” and the product didn’t require a cancer warning label. Monsanto attorneys argued federal law forbid state courts from punishing the company for following an EPA standard.
Under HB 2476, Kansas statute would say Kansas accepted EPA’s standards regarding chemical warning labels.
“The impact of HB 2476 on Kansans’ rights under state law is significant,” Denton said. “Legislative action on HB 2476 should be delayed pending a decision in the Monsanto case. If the court rules in favor of Monsanto, HB 2476 will be moot.”
A U.S. Supreme court ruling in favor of Monsanto would potentially lead to dismissal of pending Roundup lawsuits.
Tom Buller, executive director of the Kansas Rural Center, said the half-page bill would have a profoundly wide effect if placed in statute.
“This bill would give immunity to over 57,000 pesticides registered by the EPA for impacts they would have that are not listed on the label,” he said. “This bill provides immunity for every harm — cancer, Parkinson’s, birth defects — caused by any of the pesticides registered by the EPA.”
Randy Stookey, a lobbyist with the Kansas Grain and Feed Association and the Kansas Agribusiness Retailers Association, said the bill needed to be adopted by the Legislature to protect the pesticide industry. He said the Legislature should reinforce a 1994 Kansas Supreme Court decision that dismissed a plaintiff’s claim the pesticide product label failed to provide adequate warnings for consumers.
The state’s highest court at that time affirmed in Jenkins v. Amchem Products that the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution prevented Kansas from usurping federal law on pesticide product labeling.
“Even so, lawsuits are being filed on claims that the pesticide product labels lack sufficient warning language,” Stookey said. “To clarify this issue in Kansas, and to protect farmers’ ability to continue using these critical products, House Bill 2476 proposes to codify the Jenkins decision by stating that any pesticide product bearing a U.S. EPA-approved label satisfies any statutory or common law duty to warn of potential risk.”
Claudia Hissong, representing the Kanas Farm Bureau, asserted that people engaged in agriculture were committed to using chemicals “in a safe and judicious manner so as to protect the health and safety of producers, our employees, our families, our communities and the environment.”
Hissong said the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act provided a stringent process for reviewing pesticides. She also pointed to the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision three decades ago about pesticide labeling.
“As a result, House Bill 2476 would simply codify existing Kansas caselaw,” she said. “While HB 2476 would not substantively change Kansas law, it would reaffirm the state’s position and provide needed clarity for the agricultural sector.”
Aaron Popelka, an attorney with the Kansas Livestock Association, said the trade association’s 5,600 members wanted the Legislature to guarantee availability of pesticides and discourage lawsuits.
“KLA believes this legislation will help prevent frivolous failure to warn lawsuits where pesticide products are federally registered and bear a federally approved label,” he said. “This in turn will help keep pesticide products affordable and prevent premature removal of the products from the market.”
