An Act to create 94.51 of the statutes; Relating to: labeling plants as beneficial to pollinators. (FE)
Summary
AB288 would create a new section of Wisconsin statutes governing how plants may be marketed to consumers. It prohibits a person who sells or provides plants at retail from labeling or advertising a plant as beneficial to pollinators if the plant has been treated with certain systemic insecticides that carry pollinator-related warnings on the product label. The bill defines key terms such as plant, pollinator, and systemic insecticide, and applies to annual plants, bedding plants, nursery stock, and similar plant material.
The practical effect is to restrict “pollinator-friendly” marketing claims for plants that have been treated with insecticides identified as posing risks to bees or other pollinators. The bill would not ban the sale of such plants, but it would limit how they can be described to consumers. It takes effect on the first day of the seventh month after publication.
Impact
AB288 would add a new statutory labeling restriction in chapter 94, affecting plant retailers, nurseries, garden centers, and others who provide plants to end users. It would create a state-level consumer protection and environmental marketing rule by tying permissible pollinator-benefit claims to pesticide treatment and label warnings. The bill does not regulate pesticide use directly, but it would influence retail advertising practices and could require sellers to review product treatment histories and pesticide labels before making pollinator-related claims.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been introduced with a clear environmental and consumer-information purpose, and its broad list of bipartisan cosponsors suggests some support for pollinator protection and more accurate plant labeling. However, there is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided material, and the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. Based on the text alone, the measure seems framed as a targeted disclosure/marketing restriction rather than a broader regulatory overhaul.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be whether the bill is an appropriate way to protect pollinators and consumers versus an added burden on plant sellers and nurseries. Supporters would likely emphasize preventing misleading “pollinator-friendly” claims when plants have been treated with insecticides that may harm bees, while opponents may argue the bill could complicate retail labeling, create compliance costs, or discourage the use of treated plants even when they are otherwise safe to sell. Because no committee discussion is provided, the specific arguments of legislators or stakeholders are not documented in the supplied record.