Georgia Passes Bill Protecting Pesticide Makers From Lawsuits, Awaits Governor's Signature

This is the first state to introduce a bill such as this.

Earlier this week, the Georgia state House and Senate signed a bill that prevents certain litigation from being levied against chemical fertilizer and pesticide companies. This comes at a time when public distrust of conventional health and agricultural practices promoted by big business and the government increasingly dwindles.

SB 144, which passed the state House and Senate in March, is:

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.

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.

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.

Governor Kemp has faced increasing pressure to veto the bill.

Rep. Steven Meeks (R) was among those who were in favor of the bill, arguing that this would hurt farmers that rely on these chemicals to improve crop protection and yields.

“The science behind the chemical compounds used in agriculture in the U.S. are subjected to the most rigorous regulatory structure of anywhere in the world. We need to make sure we can continue to have those (chemistries) manufactured domestically here in the U.S. under our rules, regulations and safety protocols.”

Rep. Stacey Evans (D) were among those who dissented.

“This bill is not about farmers — this bill is about Bayer.

“This […] is not unlike a bill that sits on legislative desks in states all across this country. This bill is not about farmers. This bill is about Bayer. Roundup causes cancer – that is not a debate anymore. A lot of people got hurt. A lot of people got sick … and now Bayer wants to ask us to take (liability) away.”

Sen. Sam Watson (R) and Rep. Robert Dickey (R), both farmers, supported the bill and say glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is a necessary asset for the country’s agriculture industry.

“If you take products like (glyphosate) away from farmers in the United States, if you put (those) manufacturers out of business in the United States, well, guess where the food is going to come from, and guess where the product is going to come from, not the United States,” Watson said. “It’s gonna come from Mexico. It’s gonna come from China. It’s gonna come from every country around the world except America.”

“I’m a farmer, and I know what it takes to farm,” Dickey said in session. “It takes these plant protection products that I depend on to be able to be successful, to be able to grow crops. I can fight the weather, I can fight bad markets, I can fight disease, but I can’t fight the courts taking away our plant protection products in this state.”

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution highlighted some of the support for the bill from conventional farmers.

Will Bentley, president of the Georgia Agribusiness Council, which represents about 1,400 members across the state, said his organization was in favor of SB 144. He denied it was about shielding wealthy multinational corporations from responsibility for their products. “We’re just looking for regulatory clarity for our farmers,” Bentley said. “We don’t feel like there should be a patchwork of labeling regulations across the entire country.”

But not all farmers are on board. Will Harris, the owner of White Oak Pastures in Bluffton, Georgia, a regenerative farm that does not use these chemicals, wrote an impassioned letter to Kemp urging him to veto the bill and says the bill does indeed take away the ability for Americans to sue companies such as Bayer or ChemChina.

“Chemical companies and legislators are claiming that this Bill is pro-farmer, because it protects farmer access to pesticides. This claim is false - farmers deserve to have the right to sue chemical manufacturers when their land, property, or family is injured by chemicals.

“Pesticide companies have no incentive to be honest about the risks of their products.”

---

AUTHOR COMMENTARY

Let’s hope this bill gets vetoed, because if it is passed it will not only grant immunity to these companies who could care less about our health, only corporate profits, it will then open the floodgates for other states to do something similar, and that will then lead to these companies introducing even more dangerous products and being able to bully around smaller organic farms.

Proverbs 13:17 A wicked messenger falleth into mischief: but a faithful ambassador is health.

Yes, if the country banned these pesticides and more it would severely cut into the revenue share of what this country produces, but it only means people’s health will continue to destroyed so corporations and sellout farmers can make money. It’s a lose-lose situation; and money usually wins out, but we can hope that this bill gets vetoed by creating awareness, and that the Governor does not bow down to mammon.

---

[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.