HB809 SB527 / Protects pesticide manufacturers from civil liability.

If passed this bill amends current code by adding a new section that provides legal protection to pesticide manufacturers and sellers under certain conditions.

This liability protection gives a manufacturer or seller of a pesticide registered with both the Tennessee Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) cannot be held liable in a civil lawsuit regarding product labeling. This includes product liability claims alleging a failure to warn, as long as the pesticide had an EPA-approved label at the time of sale.

THE DANGER BEHIND THE BILL

Industry lobbyists claim that farmers will lose access to glyphosate and other pesticide products if state legislation providing broad civil liability protection to the pesticide industry does not pass. This assertion is both misleading and unfounded. In reality, these bills are a sweeping attempt to shield pesticide manufacturers from accountability, undermining public safety, environmental integrity, and legal recourse for those harmed by these products.

Bayer, facing growing resistance to these bills in multiple states, issued a press release on March 7th suggesting that it may cease selling Roundup if the legislation fails. This tactic is designed to instill fear and pressure legislators into supporting a measure that primarily benefits the industry, not farmers or the public. This strategy closely mirrors the 1986 legislative maneuver that exempted vaccine manufacturers from liability, a move that prioritized corporate interests over consumer protection. Lawmakers and agricultural stakeholders must recognize this as a calculated effort to circumvent responsibility rather than a legitimate concern for farmers’ access to essential products.

The proposed legislation in Tennessee is particularly problematic because it extends liability protection to all products classified as “pesticides”—a category encompassing 15,441 substances, including insecticides, fungicides, bactericides, herbicides, desiccants, and defoliants. Additionally, the bill would automatically shield future pesticide products from accountability, regardless of their potential risks or unforeseen consequences.

Importantly, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has been off-patent since 2000, and Bayer currently holds only about 25% of the market share. If Bayer chooses to withdraw Roundup from the market, farmers will simply switch to alternative brands. The suggestion that glyphosate would suddenly become unavailable is misleading fear-mongering designed to manipulate policymakers into advancing legislation that benefits corporate interests rather than the agricultural community.

Monsanto (now Bayer) has faced over 150,000 lawsuits concerning Roundup, with early trials revealing falsified data, ghostwritten scientific studies, and deliberate cover-ups of glyphosate’s potential to cause cancer. If the General Assembly enacts this legislation, it will effectively reward and enable corporate misconduct, eroding the ability of affected individuals to seek justice. Moreover, the widespread and unregulated use of Roundup has led to the rise of herbicide-resistant “superweeds,” necessitating the development of even more potent chemical solutions. The lawsuits against pesticide manufacturers have played a critical role in driving the industry toward the development of safer alternatives—a process that would be significantly undermined if liability protections are granted.

Contrary to the claims of industry lobbyists, pesticide companies are not at risk of going out of business, nor will they abruptly halt the production or shipment of glyphosate-based products. What this legislation will do, however, is grant liability protection not only to U.S.-based manufacturers but also to foreign corporations such as China-owned Syngenta, which operates within the United States. Alarmingly, this bill would provide legal immunity to international entities—including those from China and Germany (Bayer)—even as these countries ban or restrict the use of certain pesticides within their own borders due to safety concerns. For example, China continues to export paraquat to the U.S., a pesticide so hazardous that it has been outlawed for use in China itself. It is entirely unjustifiable to shield foreign corporations from liability while exposing American farmers and consumers to these risks.

Rather than enacting legislation that prioritizes corporate interests over public health and environmental sustainability, the General Assembly should focus on policies that support farmers in transitioning to regenerative and organic farming practices. Reducing reliance on harmful chemicals is not only essential for long-term agricultural resilience but also aligns with constitutional protections under the 7th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Tennessee Constitution, which guarantee the right to seek legal redress for harm. Granting blanket immunity to pesticide manufacturers—particularly those with a history of deception—sets a dangerous precedent that undermines both consumer protections and the fundamental principles of accountability in a democratic society.