Georgia CommonsSenate · Passed · 2025-2026 Regular Session
SB 144: 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 July 1, 2025 · Effective Date
A Georgia Senate bill shields pesticide manufacturers from state lawsuits over failing to warn of health risks beyond what federal EPA labeling already requires, unless a manufacturer hid safety information from the EPA.
The summaries below were written by an AI model (claude-sonnet-5) from the text of the bill and are not part of it. Quote the text, not the summary. The stored text is the Enrolled version, the latest the General Assembly's website lists.
In plain language
Under current law, someone hurt by a pesticide can sue a manufacturer in Georgia courts arguing the product's warning label should have said more about 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 or matches the EPA's most recent human health risk assessment under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), that label counts as a sufficient warning for any state lawsuit based on a duty to warn, including common law claims. There is an 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 human health risks to get or keep EPA label approval. The bill also includes legislative findings about the importance of agriculture and pesticide supply chains to Georgia's economy.
What the bill does
- Adds a new Code section (O.C.G.A. § 2-7-171) stating that an EPA-approved pesticide label counts as a sufficient warning in state lawsuits over failure to warn, starting January 1, 2026.
- Blocks state law claims, including common law duty-to-warn claims, against pesticide manufacturers when their label matches EPA registration or the latest FIFRA human health risk assessment.
- Carves out an exception removing this protection if the EPA finds the manufacturer knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed material safety information to get label approval.
- Includes legislative findings describing agriculture's economic role in Georgia and concerns about reliance on foreign, particularly Chinese, sources for pesticide ingredients.
Who it affects
Pesticide manufacturers, Georgia farmers who use fertilizers and pesticides, and Georgians who might sue over health harms from pesticide exposure. The Georgia Commissioner of Agriculture, who registers pesticides, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, whose labeling determinations become central to these lawsuits, are also implicated.
Why it matters
People harmed by a pesticide would generally no longer be able to sue a Georgia manufacturer just because its EPA-approved label did not warn of a health risk beyond federal requirements. Lawsuits could still proceed if the EPA finds the manufacturer hid safety information, but otherwise plaintiffs would have a narrower path in state court.
Key provisions
- Section 1 lists legislative findings on Georgia agriculture's economic size, reliance on crop protection products, and supply chain concerns tied to foreign, especially Chinese, ingredient sources.
- Section 2 adds O.C.G.A. § 2-7-171, defining 'Environmental Protection Agency' and 'FIFRA' for purposes of the new law.
- Section 2(b) makes an EPA-approved or FIFRA-consistent pesticide label a sufficient warning in state duty-to-warn lawsuits, effective January 1, 2026.
- Section 2(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 conflicting laws.
From the bill
“any pesticide registered with the Commissioner, pursuant to Code Section 2-7-55, or the Environmental Protection Agency, pursuant to FIFRA, which displays a label that has been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency in registering the pesticide or is consistent with the most recent human health risk assessment performed under FIFRA shall be deemed a sufficient warning label”
“provided, however, that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply when a determination has been made by the Environmental Protection Agency that a manufacturer knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed material information”
Status timeline
- Effective Date
- 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-11)
- Steve Gooch (R, SD-51)
- John F. Kennedy (R, SD-18)
- Brandon Beach (R, SD-21)
- Russ Goodman (R, SD-8)
- Drew Echols (R, SD-49)
- Carden Summers (R, SD-13)
- Lee Anderson (R, SD-24)
- Billy Hickman (R, SD-4)
- Marty Harbin (R, SD-16)
- Jason Anavitarte (R, SD-31)
- Timothy Bearden (R, SD-30)
- Max Burns (R, SD-23)
- Matt Brass (R, SD-6)
- Larry Walker, III (R, SD-20)
- Frank Ginn (R, SD-47)
- Shawn Still (R, SD-48)
- Clint Dixon (R, SD-45)
- Bill Cowsert (R, SD-46)
- Randy Robertson (R, SD-29)
- Angie O'Steen (R, HD-169)
Votes
- Senate voteMarch 4, 2025
42 yea, 12 nay (2 not voting, 0 excused)
- House voteMarch 13, 2025
101 yea, 58 nay (5 not voting, 16 excused)
Topics
- pesticide regulation
- agriculture law
- product liability
- consumer protection
- farming