Critics of large damages payouts from lawsuits challenging the safety of pesticides and herbicides are supporting a Florida bill that would help to shield distributors, dealers, applicators and manufacturers of such products from civil litigation.
House Bill 129, introduced by Rep. J.J. Grow (R-Inverness), mirrors bills proposed in other states to respond to what critics see as out-of-control product-liability lawsuits that hurt farmers and others who use herbicides or pesticides that comply with the requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute (FJRI), emphasized that the such products have been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and are scientifically determined not to cause unreasonable adverse effects on public health. Yet litigation alleging that Roundup causes cancer continues to be filed in Florida and elsewhere.
“What this law is aiming to do … is an attempt to set out that if you are in compliance with the labeling requirements, and you are using the product pursuant to the instructions given by the EPA, you can’t be held liable,” Large told the Florida Record.
The FJRI has published a white paper and summary of its arguments in support of legal reforms such as HB 129 to rein in litigation against those who use or market such products in a way that’s consistent with label instructions and its intended use.
“Pesticide manufacturers, distributors, sellers and applicators should not face astronomical litigation risk for products-liability claims involving pesticides that comply with FIFRA’s comprehensive requirements and have been determined by both the EPA and FDACS (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services) to have no unreasonable risk to human health and the environment,” the FJRI argues.. “Such litigation risk reduces farmers’ ability to protect crops and maintain important conservation practices, and threatens food availability and affordability across the nation.”
The bill would bar such civil lawsuits against pesticide or herbicide distributors, dealers, applicators or agricultural employers under the Florida Pesticide Law unless the defendant altered or modified the product that is the subject of litigation, or used the product in ways not consistent with labeling, according to the text of the bill.
In addition, “failure to warn” lawsuits would not be allowed to be filed against manufacturers of these products provided the product is EPA-approved, is consistent with FIFRA health assessments and follows federal labeling requirements.
“You have a lot of cases where individuals are diagnosed with cancer,” Large said. “ … We don't know all the reasons people develop cancer. It’s multifactorial. But plaintiffs’ attorneys will say that if you used this product, that may have been the source of your cancer.”
Recent cases filed against Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup, have led to the imposition of liability on the manufacturer, even though the EPA has determined that Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, does not present an unreasonable risk to public health, according to FJRI.
“These cases have opened the floodgates to litigation against Roundup’s manufacturers, distributors, sellers and applicators and are resulting in the unworkable patchwork of state-law requirements for pesticides that FIFRA was intended to prevent,” the FJRI’s white paper states.
Those opposed to exemption bills such as HB 129 contend that they would block average citizens claiming injuries from accessing the court system and making their case to juries.
HB 129 would take effect on July 1 if approved by lawmakers and signed by the governor.