TOPEKA — The House agriculture committee endorsed a bill on pesticide warning labels that was alternatively described as commonsense regulatory relief for farmers and a measure shielding chemical manufacturers from liability in lawsuits.
Before advancing the bill Tuesday to the full House, Republicans and Democrats on the committee expressed confusion about what precisely the bill would accomplish. The whiplash of testimony from 14 opponents and 11 advocates of the bill in a public hearing last week didn’t dissolve the analytical haze.
“I’ve tried for several days to figure out what this bill is all about,” said Rep. Tobias Schlingensiepen, a Topeka Democrat on the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. “Obviously, there’s a lot of subtlety or we wouldn’t be having the kinds of questions we’re having. Why is this bill necessary now?”
Schlingensiepen proposed the committee table House Bill 2476, but the vote on that motion was 4-11 against placing it on a back burner.
Rep. Angel Roeser, R-Manhattan, said it was important the Legislature promptly declare Kansas abided by federal pesticide labeling standards for a range of products used to boost crop production or control weeds. She offered the successful motion to send the bill to the full House.
“It’s not a liability shield,” Roeser said. “I think people are using talking points to try and talk about an industry they’re not a part of. I think that’s wrong.”
DEMOCRATIC Rep. Linda Featherston of Overland Park said there was no talking-point memo in front of her. She proposed an amendment, which was rejected by the committee, that would remove text a supporter of the bill argued would gut the attempt to shield companies from some lawsuits.
Rep. Gary White, R-Ashland, said he didn’t appreciate Featherston’s idea. “I just don’t see this as a friendly amendment,” he said.
Featherston said debate on the bill made one point clear: Opinion was fractured by diametrically opposing viewpoints.
Republican Rep. Doug Blex of Independence said he received many email messages about the bill and supported the measure despite writers sharing their “sky-is-falling” opinions.
Blex said he raised cattle and crops and probably used more farm chemicals on his no-till ground than he’d prefer. He said most producers understood fine print on pesticide labels, which might include information about potential harm to humans. As he scanned the House committee room at the Capitol, Blex said toxicity recommendations on labels were typically based on contact with a hypothetical 150-pound person.
“Most of those in this room are over that, so we can have a little more chemical than a lot of people, I think,” Blex said.
‘Failure to warn’
Zack Pistora, a lobbyist with the Kansas Sierra Club, said during a Jan. 21 public hearing on HB 2476 that comparable bills had been introduced in at least 12 states. He said bipartisan opposition to the legislation existed in Missouri, Iowa, Idaho, Florida and North Carolina. He urged the Kansas House committee to reject the bill.
“We are worried HB 2476 effectively shields pesticide companies from legal accountability, including personal injury lawsuits by offering legal immunity from any harm pesticides might cause to people or the environment,” Pistora said. “HB 2476 seems more about giving mega-chemical corporations a pass from facing case-by-case judicial assessments of inadequate warning labels and serious injuries that have resulted in millions of dollars in compensation and billions in settlements caused by harmful pesticides.”
He said the House bill would likely impair the opportunity for a secretary of the Kansas Department of Agriculture to evaluate pesticides and adopt restricted-use designations on those that had adverse impact on people or the environment.
