A new bill passed by Georgia lawmakers in March is raising concerns among environmentalists, regenerative farming advocates, and public health activists. Senate Bill 144 (SB 144), which now awaits the signature of Republican Governor Brian Kemp, would limit the liability of pesticide manufacturers in cases where consumers are exposed to health risks. The bill specifically states that manufacturers cannot be held liable for failing to warn consumers of health risks beyond those required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The legislation is being criticized by organizations such as the American Regenerative and Glyphosate Facts, with founder Kelly Ryerson warning that it could severely impact public health. Ryerson, a public health expert, explains that the bill could strip consumers of the right to sue pesticide manufacturers over health risks not adequately addressed by the EPA, even if they differ from the agency’s findings. “Stripping our right to be able to sue if we have a different opinion than what the EPA has is really going to be catastrophic for public health,” Ryerson said.
Senator Sam Watson, the Republican sponsor of SB 144, has pushed back against critics, asserting that the bill does not grant immunity to manufacturers but rather addresses the issue of failure to warn. “It’s dealing with failure to warn, it’s not providing immunity,” Watson stated. “It’s not preventing anyone from going after [manufacturers] because they thought that a product caused cancer.”
Despite Watson’s defense, critics are pointing to the potential implications for manufacturers like Bayer, which owns Monsanto, the maker of RoundUp, a popular pesticide containing glyphosate. Glyphosate has been the subject of significant controversy due to its alleged link to cancer. In 2018, a jury awarded over $2 billion to a plaintiff who claimed that RoundUp caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) labeled glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015, although the EPA’s findings diverge. In 2020, the EPA concluded that there were “no risks of concern to human health” when glyphosate is used according to its label.
Ryerson, however, disputes the EPA’s position, claiming that the research backing glyphosate’s safety has been manipulated by Monsanto, citing documents unearthed by the law firm Wisner Baum that implicate the company in ghostwriting reports downplaying the risks of glyphosate.
While the bill would primarily benefit U.S. manufacturers like Bayer, it also has broader implications for global pesticide supply chains. Critics argue that it could inadvertently shield foreign manufacturers, such as ChemChina, the Chinese state-controlled company behind the pesticide paraquat. Paraquat is considered one of the most toxic chemicals used in U.S. agriculture and has been linked to Parkinson’s disease in studies conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Despite these findings, the EPA maintains that there are “no dietary risks of concern” when paraquat is used according to the label.
In the face of these concerns, Watson has justified the bill by stating that it is essential to protect U.S. pesticide manufacturers, who might otherwise struggle to compete with foreign companies like ChemChina. “If the Chinese become the only manufacturer of a product, you can’t go after them,” Watson said. “It’s very difficult to go after a Chinese manufacturer for any kind of negligence claim.”
However, environmental advocates like Ryerson maintain that the solution is not to shield pesticide manufacturers but to remove toxic chemicals from the U.S. system altogether. “I just don’t want it anywhere in our system,” she said, expressing concern over the long-term health risks posed by widespread pesticide use.
With SB 144 now sitting on Governor Kemp’s desk for review, environmental groups and public health advocates are lobbying against the bill’s passage. They argue that limiting the ability to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable will only empower large corporations to prioritize profits over consumer safety. The bill represents a crucial test for the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) coalition, which has been vocal in its opposition to the measure, particularly given that it could set a dangerous precedent for other states to follow.
As of now, Governor Kemp has until May 14 to decide whether to sign the bill into law. If he does, Georgia would join the ranks of states making it more difficult to challenge pesticide manufacturers in court, further complicating the ongoing debate over public health, environmental protection, and corporate responsibility.
READ NEXT: Poll Shows Widespread Support For RFK Jr’s Proposed Reforms
