SB144: SB144 Fertilizers or Pesticides; a manufacturer cannot be held liable for failing to warn consumers of health risks above those required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency; clarify
Last action May 9, 2025 · Effective Date 2025-07-01
A Georgia Senate bill would shield pesticide manufacturers from state lawsuits over inadequate warning labels, as long as the product's label matches what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved.
In plain language
Under current Georgia law, people can sue pesticide manufacturers if they believe a product's warning label failed to disclose health risks. This bill changes that starting January 1, 2026. If a pesticide's label has been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the federal Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), or is consistent with the most recent EPA human health risk assessment, that label counts as a legally sufficient warning under Georgia law, including any common law duty to warn. There is one exception: the protection does not apply if the EPA has determined that the manufacturer knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed material information about the pesticide's health risks in order to get or keep EPA approval of its label. The bill also states legislative findings about Georgia agriculture's reliance on crop protection products and concerns about supply chains, and it repeals conflicting laws.
What the bill does
- Adds a new Georgia Code section (O.C.G.A. § 2-7-171) stating that an EPA-approved pesticide label is a sufficient warning for state law claims about failure to warn, starting January 1, 2026.
- Applies the protection to pesticides registered either with Georgia's Commissioner of Agriculture or with the EPA under the federal FIFRA law.
- Creates an exception removing the legal protection if the EPA has found the manufacturer knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed health risk information to get label approval.
- States legislative findings about the economic importance of Georgia agriculture and concerns about dependence on foreign supply chains for pesticide ingredients.
- Repeals any Georgia laws that conflict with this new rule.
Who it affects
Pesticide manufacturers, who gain protection from certain state lawsuits over labeling; Georgia farmers who use pesticides and fertilizers; consumers or others who might otherwise sue over inadequate health warnings; and the EPA, whose approval and determinations now carry direct legal weight in Georgia courts.
Why it matters
People who believe a pesticide label failed to warn them of health risks could find it harder to sue a manufacturer in Georgia courts if the label matches EPA-approved language, shifting more responsibility for warning adequacy to federal regulators unless fraud on the EPA is proven.
Key provisions
- Section 1 lists legislative findings about Georgia agriculture's economic size, reliance on crop protection products, and concerns about foreign supply chains for pesticide ingredients.
- Section 2 adds new Code Section 2-7-171, defining 'Environmental Protection Agency' and 'FIFRA' for purposes of the new rule.
- Subsection (b) states that starting January 1, 2026, a pesticide label approved by the EPA or consistent with the latest FIFRA human health risk assessment counts as a sufficient warning label under any state law duty-to-warn claim.
- Subsection (b) also creates an exception: the protection does not apply if the EPA determines the manufacturer knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed material health risk information to obtain or keep label approval.
- Section 3 repeals any conflicting Georgia laws.
Status timeline
- Effective Date 2025-07-01
- Act 94
- Senate Date Signed by Governor (Senate)
- Senate Sent to Governor (Senate)
- House Passed/Adopted (House)
- House Third Readers (House)
- House Committee Favorably Reported (House)
- House Second Readers (House)
Show full history (15 actions)
- House First Readers (House)
- Senate Passed/Adopted By Substitute (Senate)
- Senate Third Read (Senate)
- Senate Read Second Time (Senate)
- Senate Committee Favorably Reported By Substitute (Senate)
- Senate Read and Referred (Senate)
- Senate Hopper (Senate)
Sponsors
- Sam Watson (R, SD-011)
- Steve Gooch (R, SD-051)
- John Kennedy (R, SD-018)
- Brandon Beach (R, SD-021)
- Russ Goodman (R, SD-008)
- Drew Echols (R, SD-049)
- Carden Summers (R, SD-013)
- Lee Anderson (R, SD-024)
- Billy Hickman (R, SD-004)
- Marty Harbin (R, SD-016)
- Jason Anavitarte (R, SD-031)
- Timothy Bearden (R, SD-030)
- Max Burns (R, SD-023)
- Matt Brass (R, SD-006)
- Larry Walker (R, SD-020)
- Frank Ginn (R, SD-047)
- Shawn Still (R, SD-048)
- Clint Dixon (R, SD-045)
- Bill Cowsert (R, SD-046)
- Randy Robertson (R, SD-029)
- Angie O'Steen (R, HD-169)
Votes
- Senate voteMarch 4, 2025
42 yea, 12 nay (2 not voting, 0 absent)
- House voteMarch 13, 2025
101 yea, 58 nay (5 not voting, 16 absent)
Topics
- pesticide regulation
- agriculture law
- product liability
- consumer protection
- farming