Bill that sparked consumer protection debate over pesticides dies

TALLAHASSEE, FLA. 3/7/23-Democrats in the back row of the House Chamber remain seated while their Republican colleagues give Gov. Ron DeSantis one of many standing ovations as he delivers the State of the State address during the opening day of the 2023 Florida Legislative Session, Tuesday at the Capitol in Tallahassee. COLIN HACKLEY PHOTO

A Republican-sponsored bill to shield pesticide retailers, applicators and others from lawsuits died in the Legislature this Session as some fellow Republicans and Democrats voiced concerns that it eroded too many consumer protections.

HB 347 was postponed Friday for a third reading on the final day of the Session. The House already approved the bill 81-33 on Feb. 22.

HB 347 called to add more immunity for agricultural employers, pesticide distributors and retailers as well as pesticide applicators so they can’t be sued for product liability action unless they are at fault for harm because of the defective pesticide, according to staff analysis of the bill.

“This bill will protect the distributors, retailers and farmers by preempting product liability lawsuits for those products that had been approved for use by the federal and state authorities. Most importantly, it would preserve product liability actions against those who manufactured or modified the products in a manner inconsistent with its label approval,” said Sen. Jay Collins, who sponsored the Senate companion bill, last month in committee.

Rep. Keith Truenow, a Tavares Republican who works in the agriculture business and founded Lake Jem Farms, filed HB 347.

Collins argued that the bill was necessary to protect the agriculture industry from frivolous lawsuits.

“There has been a chilling in ag because of some of these frivolous lawsuits that have happened across the country,” said Collins, a Republican who represents Tampa.

“Product liability in ag has recently emerged as a growing threat to the ag industry. … Despite multiple government and regulatory agency reports on the use of these chemicals, no evidence of carcinogenic risk to humans, the case opened the floodgates and thousands of suits have emerged in the country.”

But Republican Sen. Ileana Garcia said she had “many concerns about this bill.”

“I am definitely pro-business but I am definitely pro-consumer as well, not to mention environment,” said Garcia at the Feb. 26 Senate Rules Committee hearing.

“The bill would allow sophisticated distributors and retailers to knowingly sell a harmful pesticide from China, Russia, and Florida farmers and consumers would have no recourse against them. The bill also serves to preclude Florida farmers and consumers from litigating their claims in Florida where the harm is caused.”

William Cotteral, General Counsel of the Florida Justice Association, argued last month that groups that are shielded from lawsuits by the bill “are in the best position to know if there’s a problem with that product and to remove that product from the shelf. … We think that it would be wrong to actually provide them with immunity.”

As an example, Cotteral pointed to a distributor knowingly selling bad pesticides to farmers who lose their crops. Or a property owner who hires a bug sprayer who has gotten complaints about the pesticide but kept using it anyway.

Collins and Truenow did not respond to a request for comment Friday.