Creates provisions relating to certain information provided by the Department of Agriculture
Summary
SB 748 would require the Missouri Department of Agriculture to publish on its website information about pesticides and herbicides. The required information includes the benefits of each pesticide or herbicide, any available scientific research or studies, known adverse effects including effects on human health, and any available alternative options.
The bill is a public-information measure rather than a direct regulatory ban or restriction. It would add a new section to Chapter 281, RSMo, creating a duty for the department to compile and make accessible educational and safety-related material about pesticide and herbicide products for the public.
Impact
If enacted, SB 748 would amend Chapter 281 of the Missouri Revised Statutes by adding section 281.330. The practical effect would be to impose a website disclosure requirement on the Department of Agriculture, expanding the information the department must provide to residents about pesticide and herbicide use, risks, and alternatives. It would affect the department’s administrative responsibilities and could indirectly affect pesticide users, agricultural producers, consumers, and public health advocates who rely on state-published information.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislative debate. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears informational and consumer-oriented, which may appeal to public health and transparency interests. At the same time, because it requires the state to publish potentially critical information about pesticides and herbicides, it could draw concern from agricultural or industry stakeholders if they view it as emphasizing risks over benefits.
Contention
The main point of contention would likely be whether the Department of Agriculture should be required to present balanced information about pesticides and herbicides, including benefits, scientific studies, adverse health effects, and alternatives. Supporters would likely favor transparency, public access to research, and informed decision-making, while opponents may worry about administrative burden, selective interpretation of scientific evidence, or unintended negative perceptions of products commonly used in agriculture and pest control. No specific individuals or groups are identified in the available record.