Georgia Becomes Second State To Prohibit Lawsuits Against Pesticide Producers Amidst Raft Of Payouts
The text of the bill clarifies that a product label approved by the EPA must be seen as a satisfactory warning of possible harm, and would apply to these chemical producers.
Georgia has become the second U.S. state to effectively prevent lawsuits from being filed against big-agriculture and chemical companies, after lobbyist groups representing conglomerates such as Bayer have been influencing other states to pass identical laws.
After passing the state House and Senate, Governor Brian Kemp signed SB 144 on May 9th, and it takes effect on July 1st, Crop Life noted.
The text of the bill clarifies that a product label approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must be seen as a satisfactory warning of possible harm, and would apply to these chemical producers. The law does not apply if a manufacturer “knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed” appropriate information on health risks to gain acceptance.
The text of the bill reads:
A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Article 6 of Chapter 7 of Title 2 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to liability for use of fertilizers, plant growth regulators, or pesticides, so as to clarify that a manufacturer cannot be held liable for failing to warn consumers of health risks above those required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency with respect to pesticides; to provide for legislative findings; to provide for related matters; to provide for applicability; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
Earlier this month, The WinePress reported that North Dakota became the first state to pass an identical piece of legislation.
On April 24th, Gov. Kelly Armstrong signed House Bill 1318 which says that a label approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is sufficient enough warning to Americans about the hazards posed by these chemicals. The similarly worded bill reads:
“[…] Any pesticide registered with the agriculture commissioner […] which displays a label approved by the United States environmental protection agency […] or displays a label consistent with the [EPA] carcinogenicity classification for the pesticide […] is sufficient to satisfy any requirement for warning or labeling regarding health or safety […] concerning the duty to warn or label, or any other common law duty to warn.”
Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, executive director of the Modern Ag Alliance - a lobbyist front group founded by Bayer - lauded the bill and said this will set a precedent for other states to follow suit. In a statement she said:
“Enacting HB 1318 into law is a resounding win for farmers and all North Dakotans. Governor Armstrong and the legislature have set a strong, bipartisan example for the country by preserving farmers’ access to essential crop protection tools that help keep farms competitive and grocery bills down.
“Thanks to this legislation, North Dakota farmers will have the certainty they need to keep doing what they do best—growing the food we all depend on. This law sets the standard for states across America to pass legislation similar to HB 1318 and, ultimately, stand up for our farmers.”
In March, Monsanto was forced to pay a hefty $2.1 billion to a man who said Roundup caused his cancer after a Georgia jury sided with the man, marking one of the largest payouts to date.
Monsanto said the verdict “conflicts with the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence and the consensus of regulatory bodies and their scientific assessments worldwide.” It added that the company will continue “to stand fully behind the safety” of Roundup products.
Lawsuit Information Center notes:
As of March 2025, Monsanto has reached settlement agreements in nearly 100,000 Roundup lawsuits. Monsanto paid approximately $11 billion. Bayer has accomplished this by negotiating block settlement arrangements with plaintiffs’ lawyers who have significant cases in the litigation… and by settling with plaintiffs before trial.
Although these settlements account for nearly two-thirds of all Roundup claims, Monsanto estimates that 67,000 active Roundup lawsuits remain. Most lawsuits have been filed in state court, but over 4,000 claims in the MDL Roundup class action lawsuit are still pending in California.
The WP also noted that other states are currently dealing with lobbyist pressure to pass these types of bills in their states, including Florida, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wyoming, and North Carolina being the most recent, though some of these bills have died-out.
Read more about it here.
AUTHOR COMMENTARY
Proverbs 17:23 A wicked man taketh a gift out of the bosom to pervert the ways of judgment.
“Lobbying” is just another elementary term that means bribes and payoffs.
The Big-Ag and Big-Pharma poisoners cannot be held to account. Profits from poisoning: it’s the American way. But don’t worry, your food is so safe we the government has to put warning labels on it so that you consent to eating poisoned food and know the risks!
Elizabeth Burns-Thompson was unfortunately right, the North Dakota passage would set a dangerous precedent going forward. With two states down - both with bipartisan support I might add - we can expect to see more state “lawmakers” sellout, as they always do.
Amos 5:12 For I know your manifold transgressions and your mighty sins: they afflict the just, they take a bribe, and they turn aside the poor in the gate from their right.
This also creates a problem for the MAHA movement. Even though I am on record criticizing Kennedy and MAHA, undercutting any attempts at the federal level to change the health standards in this country. The fact is that while I am a staunch advocate for regenerative and organic practices, using the conventional poisons on these large-scale farms is simply too profitable and decoupling from them would wreck the industry and the broader economy as a whole, and so therefore it cannot be allowed.
[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).
The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.
Shame on Georgia for this & alot of other corruption! Shame, shame!
The vast majority of those in politics are not benevolent by any stretch of the imagination. They are in it FOR the grift. Now don't you just know the governors involved (so far) received a handsome payout? Under the table, of course!