The 2026 legislative session is currently in process for most states and legislative trends have begun to emerge. One of those trends, familiar from the 2025 and 2024 legislative sessions, focuses on state regulation of pesticide labels. At least six states have introduced bills to limit the liability of pesticide companies in injury and product liability lawsuits by establishing uniformity between federal and state pesticide labeling requirements. Additionally, the draft farm bill recently introduced to the federal Congress includes a provision to clarify the authority of states under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”). While not all of these bills are guaranteed to pass, they indicate a legislative trend that is relevant to those in the agricultural industry.
Background
Over the last decade, there has been a marked increase in the number of lawsuits filed by plaintiffs who claim that exposure to a particular pesticide product caused them to suffer an injury or illness. The best known of these cases have involved plaintiffs who claim that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the widely used herbicide Roundup, have caused them to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. However, cases have also been filed over exposure to paraquat, chlorpyrifos, and various other commonly used pesticide products. Regardless of the specific pesticide implicated in a particular lawsuit, across the board the plaintiffs in pesticide liability litigation raise similar legal claims which arise out of state law. One of those legal claims, the claim that pesticide manufacturers failed to warn consumers about the health risks allegedly associated with exposure to a certain pesticide product, has become central to pesticide liability litigation.
Failure to warn claims arise out of state law and are most often brought by plaintiffs in product liability lawsuits to claim that the manufacturer of a particular product failed to warn consumers about potential injuries that can result from normal use of the product. For example, a plaintiff who alleges failure to warn in a pesticide liability lawsuit involving glyphosate will argue that Bayer, the manufacturer of glyphosate, failed to warn consumers that exposure to the herbicide could cause the user to develop cancer. Pesticide manufacturers have pushed back on these claims by arguing that pesticides are regulated under FIFRA, a federal law that requires all pesticides bear a federally approved label to be legally sold in the United States. FIFRA specifically prohibits states from adding language to a federally registered pesticide label that is “in addition to or different from” federal requirements. 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b). Additionally, part of registering a pesticide label requires the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to conduct a human health risk assessment for the pesticide and make a carcinogenicity classification. Pesticide manufacturers such as Bayer have argued that failure to warn claims in pesticide injury lawsuits should be categorically dismissed because the only way to avoid the claims would be for the manufacturer to add warning statements to their pesticide products that are not required under federal law.
The question of whether failure to warn claims should be permitted in pesticide liability lawsuits continues to make its way through the court system, with the United States Supreme Court announcing in early 2026 that it would hear the issue. In the meantime, some states are looking to pass legislation that would make a federally registered pesticide label a complete defense to failure to warn claims. In 2025, Georgia and North Dakota both passed laws to make a federally registered pesticide label a complete defense to state law failure to warn claims. More states may follow in 2026.
Pesticide Liability in 2026
So far, at least six states and the federal government have introduced bills to limit liability for pesticide manufacturers in 2026. The bills are largely similar, with a handful of differences.
Florida
Florida introduced HB 443 in November 2025. It states that any state law action based on failure to warn “may not be brought or maintained” against a pesticide product that has been registered by EPA under FIFRA so long as the label for such pesticide has been approved by EPA, is consistent with the most recent human health risk assessment performed under FIFRA, or is consistent with EPA’s carcinogenicity classification for the pesticide. In other words, should HB 443 become law, a federally approved pesticide label would be a complete defense against a state law claim that the pesticide manufacturer failed to warn consumers about an alleged health risk of using the pesticide. Importantly, HB 443 would not shield a pesticide manufacturer from liability if EPA determines that the manufacturer “knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed material information” regarding the human health impacts of the pesticide in order to obtain a federally approved label.
HB 443 is currently before the Florida House of Representatives Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee. An identical bill, SB 518, was introduced to the Florida Senate in January 2026. State lawmakers will often introduce identical bills to both chambers of their legislature to make the process of passing legislation quicker and more efficient. Florida introduced similar legislation in 2025 but failed to pass it. The Florida legislature will adjourn on March 13. If HB 443 becomes law, it will go into effect July 1, 2026.
Kansas
HB 2476 was introduced to the Kansas legislature on January 20, 2026. Like the Florida bill, HB 2476 provides that a pesticide product will satisfy any state law requirements for health and safety warnings so long as it bears a federally registered label that is either consistent with the most recent human health assessment performed for the pesticide under FIFRA or is consistent with EPA’s carcinogenicity classification for the pesticide. The bill would apply only to legal claims related to failure to warn. It would not provide a defense against claims that are unrelated to product warnings or labeling.
HB 2476 passed the Kansas House of Representatives on January 30, 3036 and is currently before the Kansas Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources. If HB 2476 passes the Kansas Senate and is signed into law by the state’s governor, it would become law as soon as it is officially published in the Kansas code. The Kansas legislature will adjourn on March 10.
Kentucky
Legislators in Kentucky introduced SB 199 on February 13, 2026. Should it become law, SB 199 would amend Kentucky law so that a federally registered pesticide label would be considered a “sufficient warning label” for any state law concerning the duty to warn. Like the bill introduced in Kansas, SB 199 would only make a federally registered pesticide label a defense against failure to warn claims. Legal causes of action that arise out of state law other than failure to warn would not be prohibited should SB 199 become law. Similarly, SB 199 clarifies that the defense to failure to warn claims would not apply if EPA has determined that a pesticide manufacturer “knowingly withheld, conceal, misrepresented, or destroyed” information related to the human health risks of a particular pesticide product.
SB 199 is currently with the Kentucky Senate but has not been assigned a committee for an initial hearing. The Kentucky legislature is set to adjourn on April 15.
Missouri
Lawmakers in Missouri pre-filed HB 2712 in early January before the start of the legislative session. Under HB 2712, a pesticide label that is approved by EPA, or consistent with the EPA carcinogenicity classification for the pesticide would satisfy any state requirement regarding cancer warning labels. Importantly, it would not provide complete immunity from liability to pesticide manufacturers. HB 2712 would only provide a defense to claims that the pesticide does not bear a necessary cancer warning.
This is the third year in a row that Missouri has considered a bill to limit liability for pesticide manufacturers facing failure to warn claims. In both 2024 and 2025, Missouri failed to pass the proposed legislation. Currently, HB 2712 is before the Missouri House of Representatives. The Missouri legislature will adjourn on May 30.
Tennessee
HB 809 was introduced to the Tennessee legislature in February 2025. It has been carried over into the 2026 legislative session. HB 809 provides that the manufacturer or seller of a pesticide that has been registered by EPA under FIFRA would not be liable for any civil action related to the labeling of the pesticide including failure to warn so long as the pesticide bore a label approved by EPA at the time of sale. Like the bill introduced in Florida, HB 809 clarifies that it would not apply if EPA determines that a pesticide manufacturer “knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed material information” related to the human health risks of a pesticide to have the product federally registered.
At the moment, HB 809 is before the Tennessee House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. Identical legislation was introduced to the Tennessee Senate as SB 527 in January 2025 and passed the chamber on April 7, 2025. Should HB 809 be passed in the Tennessee House of Representatives, it appears likely to become law and would go into immediate effect upon being signed into law. The Tennessee legislature is set to adjourn on April 26.
Wyoming
While the other states that have introduced pesticide liability legislation this year have all been in regular session, Wyoming is currently in a budget session. During a budget session, the Wyoming legislature will typically focus on legislation involving the state budget. Other bills may be proposed, but non-budget legislation will only be formally introduced to the legislature if two thirds of the chamber vote to introduce it. SF 74 was received for introduction in the Wyoming Senate on February 6. The bill provides that health and safety labels for any pesticide sold in Wyoming “shall not vary in material respects” from the pesticide’s federally registered label and would supersede any state law requirements related to pesticide labels or warnings.
Ultimately, SF 74 did not pass a vote to be introduced to the Wyoming Senate. It is unlikely that the bill will be further considered by the Wyoming legislature this term.
Federal Congress
On February 13, 2026, the House Committee on Agriculture released a draft Farm Bill that is currently before the Committee. The bill includes a provision titled “Uniformity of Pesticide Labeling Requirements” which, if passed into law, would limit the ability of states to modify federally registered pesticide labels. Specifically, the provision would prohibit any state or court from requiring a pesticide manufacturer to include language on a federally registered pesticide label that differs from the language approved by EPA under FIFRA. Additionally, the bill would prevent a court from holding a pesticide manufacturer liable for failing to include language on a pesticide label that differs from the language approved by EPA.
In an announcement that accompanied the release of the draft Farm Bill, the House Committee on Agriculture Chairman Glen “GT” Thomson stated that the Committee would being marking up the bill on February 23. Following the mark up, the Committee will vote on whether to advance the bill to the full House of Representatives. If the House votes to pass the bill, it would progress to the Senate. The future of the bill is uncertain as it has been reported that several lawmakers consider the current draft to contain “poison pills” which they would be unwilling to vote for, including the pesticide labeling uniformity provision. It is unclear whether the bill will advance out of committee.
Going Forward
With the legislative session now underway for most states, the trend which emerged in 2024 and 2025 regarding pesticide labeling is continuing into 2026. So far, at least six states have introduced bills to make a federally registered pesticide label a complete defense to any state level claims that a pesticide manufacturer failed to warn consumers about a potential health risk of using a particular pesticide. Congress has also introduced language that would further limit the ability of states to require pesticide labeling language that differs from what is required by EPA. While it remains unclear which states will successfully pass a pesticide liability limitation bill in 2026, it is possible that the Supreme Court could render any further actions from states unnecessary following its decision to hear a case which directly asks whether federal pesticide law should preempt state law claims of failure to warn.
The National Agricultural Law Center will continue to provide updates as this issue moves forward.
To view the text of FIFRA, click here.
For more information on pesticide law from the National Agricultural Law Center, click here.