Gov. Kelly Armstong (R) signed a bill Thursday making North Dakota the first state to enact legislation to protect pesticide makers, including chemical giant Bayer, from lawsuits over allegations of improperly warning that a pesticide could cause cancer.
Bayer issued a statement Thursday cheering the new law and calling it a win for farmers who rely on Roundup, a popular weedkiller manufactured by the German-based company and the target of intense litigation.
Armstrong did not announce that he signed the bill and did not issue a signing statement.
The Georgia legislature approved a similar measure last month. Gov. Brian Kemp (R) has until May 14 to sign it.
Similar bills were introduced this year in Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Wyoming, but none were passed.
The legislation comes after Bayer formed a group, Modern Ag Alliance, to help lobby for its passage. The measure was introduced in several states last year and another push could come next year.
The new North Dakota law states that any pesticide registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — and sold under a label consistent with the EPA’s own determinations — is sufficient to satisfy state label warning requirements for health and safety.
The EPA does not require certain pesticides, including Roundup, to carry a cancer warning.
Bayer and Roundup have been the target of 181,000 lawsuits that argue the weedkiller should have had a cancer warning and allege that many are suffering due to the lack of a warning.
More suits are expected. Bayer has set aside $16 billion to settle cases. But if more states enact the North Dakota law it could help the company win pending and future lawsuits and save the it billions.
“Bayer hopes the courts will begin applying this legislation to provide the legal certainty regarding claims about the health and safety warning labels on crop protection products,” the company said.
During a Senate debate this month, bill proponents said the issue has been a gift to trial lawyers who have filed thousands of frivolous lawsuits.
“What we’re talking about here is an extreme outlier in a set of data,” said Sen Mark Weber (R), who said the lawsuits exploit EPA labeling processes for not requiring a cancer warning.
Sen. Greg Kessel (R) argued that the process is adequate.
“We have 500 EPA scientists working on a pesticide label before it gets to us,” Kessel said. “It takes 13 years to vet.”
Supporters also argued that Bayer could ultimately take the product off the market, which would make farmers rely on the only other manufacturer, which is based in China.
But others raised concerns that those that use the pesticide, particularly farmers, are giving up a legal protection that they may not need now, but could in the future.
“There are things we do not know about these chemicals or these practices,” Sen. Tim Mathern (D) said. “What concerns me is the farmers themselves are giving up some protection. … It’s important that you maintain this protection. Our producers, our farmers are so important. Don’t give it away.”
Mathern also said he found it ironic that North Dakota Republicans were on the same side as the EPA, given their avowed dislike of the agency under Democratic presidents and the Trump administration’s cuts at the agency.
“I don’t know if we’ll even have an EPA in the next couple years,” Mathern said. “That’s one issue that I wish we would put some realism to in light of the present administration.”