This legislative session has seen various trends in legislation among different states, including at least nine states that have introduced bills to limit the liability of pesticide companies in injury and product liability lawsuits. While the trend initially kicked off last year with a handful of states introducing pesticide liability limitation bills during the 2024 session, it gained new momentum this year as more states introduced bills and a few have come close to passing. However, with the end of the legislative session approaching for many states, there is still some question as to whether any of the pesticide liability limitation bills introduced in 2025 will clear the finish line.
Background
The last decade has seen a sharp rise in lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming that exposure to a pesticide product caused them to develop some sort of illness or injury. While the highest profile pesticide injury cases have involved plaintiffs who claim that exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the pesticide Roundup, have caused them to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, plaintiffs have also filed cases alleging injury as the result of exposure to paraquat, chlorpyrifos, and other commonly used pesticide products. Despite the pesticide at issue in a particular lawsuit, most pesticide injury plaintiffs raise similar legal claims, which the National Agricultural Law Center have reviewed in a series called Plaintiffs & Pesticides. Over the last few years, one of those legal claims, the claim that pesticide manufacturers failed to warn consumers about health risks allegedly associated with exposure to certain pesticide products, has become central to pesticide injury litigation.
Failure to warn claims are raised by almost every plaintiff in a pesticide injury lawsuit. Failure to warn arises out of state law and is most often raised during product liability lawsuits by plaintiffs claiming 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 glyphosate injury lawsuit will argue that Bayer, the manufacturer of glyphosate, failed to warn consumers that regular exposure to glyphosate could cause the user to develop cancer.
Pesticide manufacturers have pushed back against failure to warn claims by arguing that pesticides are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), a federal law that requires all pesticides bear a federally-approved label in order to be legally sold in the United States. Part of registering a pesticide product label requires the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to conduct a human health risk assessment and make a carcinogenicity classification. Additionally, FIFRA prohibits states from adding language to a federally registered pesticide label that is “in addition to or different from” federal requirements. Pesticide manufacturers, and Bayer in particular, argue that failure to warn claims in pesticide injury lawsuits should be dismissed because the only way to avoid the claims would be for Bayer to affix cancer warning statements to the packaging of any product containing glyphosate. Bayer argues that this would violate FIFRA by introducing label language that is different from the federally approved label as EPA has never concluded that glyphosate is carcinogenic in humans.
While courts continue to consider whether failure to warn claims should be permitted in pesticide injury lawsuits, some states are looking to pass legislation that would limit the liability of pesticide manufacturers facing failure to warn lawsuits over pesticide products that bear federally approved labels that are consistent with the most recent human health risk evaluations and carcinogenicity classifications from EPA.
Pesticide Liability Limitation Bills
In 2025, at least nine states have introduced liability limitation bills for pesticide manufacturers. As the end of the 2025 legislative session approaches for many states, this is where the various pesticide liability limitation bills stand.
Florida
Legislators in Florida introduced HB 129 in early January. Originally, HB 129 would have only limited liability for anyone who distributed, sold, or applied pesticide products and would extend that liability limitation to “any products liability actions, including failure to warn.” However, the bill has since been amended to limit any products liability action based on failure to warn for any pesticide product that is registered under FIFRA provided that the pesticide bears a label that has been approved by EPA, and is consistent with both the most recent human health risk assessment and carcinogenicity classification of the pesticide. HB 129 would only allow a failure to warn claim to proceed in a pesticide products liability case if EPA determines that the pesticide manufacturer “knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed material information” related to the human health risks or possible carcinogenicity of the pesticide.
Currently, HB 129 is before the Housing, Agriculture & Tourism Subcommittee in the Florida House of Representatives. The Florida legislative session is set to adjourn on May 2.
Georgia
Legislators in Georgia introduced SB 144 in February alongside companion bill HB 424. While HB 424 was withdrawn in early April, SB 144 has passed both the Georgia Senate and House of Representatives and is headed to the Governor’s desk to be signed into law. Under SB 144, a pesticide label that is approved by EPA under FIFRA and is consistent with the most recent human health risk assessment for the pesticide shall be considered “a sufficient warning label” for any failure to warn claims raised under state law. Like the bill in Florida, the only exception under SB 144 arises if EPA determines that a pesticide manufacturer knowingly “withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed material information regarding the human health risks of such pesticide.”
Georgia’s governor has 40 days following the end of the legislative session to review all bills that passed the legislature and decide whether to sign them into law. Georgia’s legislative session ended on April 4 which gives the governor’s office until May 14 to make the decision. Should the governor sign SB 144, it will go into effect on January 1, 2026. Should the governor veto the bill, it will return to the legislature during the next session to determine whether lawmakers wish to override the veto which requires a two-thirds majority of each legislative chamber. Should the governor choose to do nothing at all, SB 144 would become law automatically 40 days after the legislative session ends. Should SB 144 become law, it would make Georgia the first state to successfully enact a pesticide liability limitation law.
Iowa
SF 394 was originally introduced to the Iowa legislature in late February as SSB 1051. The bill is nearly identical to one that was introduced in the Iowa legislature in 2024 and, like other pesticide liability limitation bills, would provide that a pesticide label which is registered under FIFRA and consistent with both the most recent human health risk assessment and carcinogenicity classification would be an adequate defense to any claims that manufacturer failed to warn consumers about possible health risks of the pesticide. SF 394 passed the Iowa Senate on March 26 and is currently in the Iowa House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. Iowa’s legislative session ends on May 2.
Mississippi
Lawmakers in Mississippi introduced HB 1221 and its companion bill SB 2472 in late January. Both bills would have exempted pesticide manufacturers from liability for failure to warn claims for any pesticide product that bears a label approved by EPA. However, both bills died on the calendar in early February. It is possible that similar legislation could be reintroduced during the next legislative session.
Missouri
Missouri’s HB 544 was pre-filed in late December 2024 and is largely identical to a bill introduced during Missouri’s 2024 legislative session. HB 544 provides that a pesticide label that has been approved by EPA and is consistent with the most recent human health risk assessment and carcinogenicity classification would be a sufficient defense for state law failure to warn claims. The bill passed the Missouri House of Representatives in late February and is currently before the Missouri Senate. Missouri’s legislative session concludes on May 30.
North Dakota
HB 1318 was introduced to the North Dakota legislature in January and is similar to other pesticide liability limitation bills. It would make a federally approved pesticide label that is consistent with the most recent human health risk assessment and carcinogenicity classification a sufficient defense to any failure to warn claims. HB 1318 unanimously passed the North Dakota House of Representatives before the end of January and is currently before the Senate. A Senate hearing on HB 1318 is scheduled for April 20. North Dakota will adjourn its legislative session on May 9.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma legislators introduced HB 1755 at the start of February. Like other bills, HB 1755 would find that a pesticide label is a sufficient defense to any failure to warn claims if it is approved by EPA and consistent with the most recent human health risk assessment and carcinogenicity classification. HB 1755 is currently before the Oklahoma House of Representatives Rules Committee. It has yet to be introduced to the House floor. Oklahoma’s legislative session is scheduled to conclude on May 30.
Tennessee
SB 527 and its companion bill HB 809 were introduced to the Tennessee Senate and House of Representatives in late January and early February respectively. The two bills are identical to one another, although both are slightly different than the pesticide liability limitation bills that have been introduced in other states. SB 527 and HB 809 would provide that a pesticide manufacturer is not liable for any civil action related to the labeling of the pesticide, including failure to warn, so long as the pesticide bears a label approved by EPA and the pesticide itself was not manufactured or sold in violation of FIFRA. This makes the Tennessee bills slightly broader than other pesticide liability limitation bills which are focused primarily on failure to warn claims. SB 527 passed the Senate in early April and has been sent to the Tennessee House of Representatives. However, the House tabled HB 809, opting to schedule it for the 2026 calendar instead of hearing it this year. With Tennessee’s legislative session set to adjourn on April 25, it appears unlikely that either SB 527 or HB 809 will pass this year.
Wyoming
Lawmakers in Wyoming introduced HB 0285 in late January. The bill would have provided that a pesticide manufacturer’s duty to warn consumers about the risks associated with a particular pesticide would be presumed satisfied so long as the pesticide bore a label approved by EPA. That presumption could only have been overcome if the weight of scientific evidence showed that an additional warning label was necessary. HB 0285 died in committee in early March, however it is possible that the bill could be reintroduced during the 2026 legislative session.
Conclusion
As the end of the 2025 legislative session approaches, it appears that so far only one state is on track to successfully enact a pesticide liability limitation bill. Georgia is currently poised to be the first state to adopt such a bill. Should Georgia’s SB 144 become law, starting on January 1 of next year, a federally approved pesticide label that is consistent with the most recent human health risk assessment and carcinogenicity classification will be a sufficient defense to state law failure to warn claims filed by pesticide injury plaintiffs in Georgia state court. Recently, a jury in Georgia awarded the plaintiff in a pesticide injury lawsuit $2.065 billion. Similar lawsuits pending in Georgia state court could ultimately be less successful after SB 144 goes into effect.
Overall, it is currently unclear what the impact of pesticide liability limitation bills will be. There are currently thousands of pesticide injury lawsuits pending in states across the country and even if all nine states that introduced pesticide liability limitation bills in the 2025 legislative session had passed them, it is not clear how many lawsuits would be resolved. For the moment, it appears that pesticide injury lawsuits will continue to make their way through the court system.
To view the text of FIFRA, click here.
For more information on pesticides from the National Agricultural Law Center, click here.