AN ACT to create and enact a new section to chapter 28-01.3 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to pesticide labeling.
HB 1318 creates a new section in North Dakota Century Code chapter 28-01.3 addressing pesticide labeling and warnings. The bill provides that a pesticide registered with the North Dakota agriculture commissioner or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is deemed to satisfy state warning and labeling requirements if it displays an EPA-approved label, a label consistent with the EPA’s most recent human health assessment, or a label consistent with the EPA’s carcinogenicity classification for that pesticide.
In practical terms, the bill ties North Dakota’s state-law duty to warn or label for pesticides to federal EPA determinations. It states that compliance with those federal labeling standards is sufficient to meet any state statutory, regulatory, or common-law duty to warn about health or safety risks, limiting separate state-law labeling claims against covered pesticide products.
The bill preempts or narrows state-law warning and labeling claims for pesticides by making EPA-approved or EPA-consistent labeling a complete defense under North Dakota law. It affects pesticide registrants, manufacturers, distributors, and potentially plaintiffs bringing state tort or product-liability claims based on failure-to-warn theories, while aligning state requirements more closely with federal FIFRA-based labeling standards.
The vote history suggests the bill was supported by a majority in both chambers, passing the House 51-40 and the Senate 29-18. That margin indicates generally favorable sentiment among supporters, likely centered on regulatory uniformity and deference to federal pesticide oversight, though the relatively close votes show meaningful opposition. No committee transcript is available, so the public record here reflects support sufficient for passage but not unanimous agreement.
The main point of contention is whether state law should defer entirely to federal pesticide labeling decisions or preserve broader state-level warning and liability standards. Supporters likely view the bill as providing certainty for registrants and avoiding conflicting requirements, while opponents may see it as limiting consumer protections and restricting state common-law remedies for alleged pesticide-related health harms. The close roll-call votes in both chambers indicate this federal-versus-state authority issue was the central divide.