Kentucky law shields pesticide companies; critics warn of preemption on cancer warnings

• A new Kentucky law, SB 199, shields pesticide companies from lawsuits if their labels are EPA-approved.
• The law takes effect July 15, overriding Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto with Republican legislative support.
• Critics argue it preempts state health warnings, particularly on glyphosate-based products like Roundup.
• Similar liability shield bills are active in seven states, with Georgia and North Dakota already passing them.
• A U.S. Supreme Court case this summer may further limit state-level consumer lawsuits over pesticide warnings.

A new legal precedent

In a move that could reshape pesticide liability nationwide, Kentucky has become the third state to pass a law shielding pesticide manufacturers from lawsuits if their product labels meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Senate Bill 199, signed into law after the Republican-controlled legislature overrode Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto, takes effect July 15. The law stipulates that a company cannot be sued in Kentucky for failing to warn consumers about health risks — including cancer — if its label carries EPA approval. The bill passed amid broader national efforts to limit state-level pesticide regulations, with similar legislation active in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Florida and Iowa. Advocates say the law undermines state oversight of pesticide safety, while supporters argue it provides farmers with regulatory certainty.

A growing trend: State liability shields

Kentucky’s law follows Georgia and North Dakota, which passed similar liability shields in 2025. The bills propose that EPA-approved labels constitute a “sufficient warning” barring state-level failure-to-warn claims. Proponents, including farmers like Matt Gajdzik of Mulberry Orchard in Shelbyville, argue that such laws protect access to essential pesticides. Gajdzik told WHAS11 that without these tools, crop protection would be impossible: “We need all the tools that we can in order to produce that safe, high-quality food.”

Gov. Beshear opposed the measure, stating at a June 4 news conference: “All I’m asking is make a product that doesn’t kill people. And you don’t have liability if you have a safe product.” Dr. Aruni Bhatnagar of the University of Louisville noted circumstantial evidence linking certain pesticides to cancers, questioning whether EPA labeling serves as a “floor or a ceiling” for health protections. The law includes a narrow exception if a manufacturer “knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed material information regarding human health risks” to obtain EPA label approval.

Historical context: Glyphosate, Roundup and the courts

The legal battle over pesticide liability has intensified since Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018, inheriting thousands of lawsuits alleging that Roundup — containing glyphosate — causes cancer. Plaintiffs claim Monsanto ghost-wrote key safety studies, a finding that led to retraction of a prominent journal article. In 2023, Bayer reformulated consumer Roundup but continues selling glyphosate-based industrial products.

The timing of Kentucky’s law is significant. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this summer on whether federal pesticide labeling preempts state failure-to-warn claims, a case that could render state shields moot or strengthen their legal foundation. At the federal level, the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act — introduced by Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) — would similarly preempt state warnings, drawing support from over 360 agricultural organizations. Lobbying records show Bayer and CropLife America have made passage a priority, according to investigative reporter Carey Gillam. Johnson declined to disclose contributions from agrochemical companies but said the bill provides certainty for farmers by reaffirming EPA authority.

The consumer accountability debate

Consumer advocates argue that liability shields remove a critical check on corporate behavior. The nonprofit PIRG notes that 280 million pounds of glyphosate are applied annually to nearly 300 million acres of U.S. farmland. In states with shields, consumers cannot sue over lack of cancer warnings unless manufacturers intentionally concealed data. “Liability shields prevent consumers from enforcing key protections against EPA-registered pesticides,” PIRG stated in a recent analysis.

Kentucky Republicans who supported SB 199, including Senate President Robert Stivers, argued that consistent rules are necessary: “You can’t have a patchwork type of rules and regulations.” Yet the law has divided the GOP; several Republican lawmakers joined Democrats in opposing it. Similar efforts were successfully defeated in Florida last month.

A precedent for federal action?

As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh in, Kentucky’s law may serve as a template for federal legislation. The dual pressures of state-level shields and proposed federal preemption signal a coordinated effort by pesticide manufacturers to limit courtroom liability. For consumers, the question remains whether EPA labeling provides adequate protection or serves — as critics contend — as a ceiling preventing stronger health warnings. With glyphosate linked to cancer in thousands of pending lawsuits, the outcome of these legal and legislative battles will determine whether Americans can hold chemical companies accountable in their own states. For now, Kentucky has drawn a line: the label approved by Washington is the final word.

Sources for this article include:

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

WHAS11.com

PIRG.org