JEFFERSON CITY — A bill that would change pesticide regulation requirements passed out of the Senate Agriculture, Food Production and Outdoor Resources committee Wednesday.

Senate Bill 1005, sponsored by Sen. Kurtis Gregory, R-Marshall, states warning label protections for pesticides registered by the Environmental Protection Agency are sufficient to meet state standards for cancer warnings. Some argue the provision could potentially limit liability lawsuits, but the bill states that the labeling rules would not fully grant manufacturers immunity from liability.

Much of the debate revolved around the German company, Bayer. The company has been the target of tens of thousands of lawsuits claiming that its product, RoundUp, causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma because of the ingredient glyphosate.

In December of 2025, a landmark study from 2000 proving that glyphosate wasn’t linked with cancer was retracted after evidence that the company’s employees were involved in writing it came to light.

Currently, the EPA’s own research does not find glyphosate to be a carcinogen.  Under the bill, state law would not require a warning label until the EPA does.

Supporters of the bill said it would create consistency across states and ensure farmers’ access to a product they need to do their job.

Mark Fiegenbaum, representing the Missouri Farm Bureau, said that his organization trusts the federal agency to adequately label pesticide products.

“We believe the EPA has the process and resources available to determine whether or not a product is deemed safe and effective, and that when they assign a label to a product, that label should be able to satisfy warning needs and use for that product,” he said.

The opposition’s arguments primarily revolved around state sovereignty. Ben Mook with the Missouri Association of Trial Lawyers said that the EPA shouldn’t be the end-all be-all when it comes to protecting our farmers.

“Five years ago, this body would have laughed at the notion that we should be relying on the EPA to tell Missouri how to do anything, but now we’re embracing the federal government to come protect us and save us,” he said.

Byron Keelin, representing Freedom Principle, said there should be an ability to set safety standards outside of federal government regulation.

“Missouri has unique farms, rivers, soils and communities that demand state-level oversight, not blind deference to federal agencies that prioritize national agendas over our sovereignty,” he said.

Those testifying in opposition had concerns that warning labels could cause pesticide companies to be immune from legal action. Jamie Blair, representing the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, said the right to seek justice when you believe you have been harmed is fundamental. 

“The idea that we would curtail that right for some of the hardest working, most dedicated and least likely to complain people in our state is an insult to injury if I’ve ever heard one,” Blair said. “Industry doesn’t want to curtail that right because it’s frivolous or being found without merit. They are trying to change the rules mid-play because they are losing.”

Dusty Collins, a farmer from Howell, spoke about how vital glyphosate is to his farm. During a shortage of the product, Collins said he had to use mixtures of alternative pesticides that were less effective. 

“The elimination of glyphosate access would consequently compromise agronomic, environmental and financial liability of agricultural operations, while paradoxically increasing the per-acre pesticide product used, thereby elevating potential exposure to produce. We’re going to have to use more products to do what we’re doing now, so that’s not limiting our product exposure, right?”

The committee members thanked Collins for taking the time to testify. .