There was lengthy debate in the Senate floor yesterday about pesticide labels.

Senate Bill 199 would limit citizens from suing pesticide companies for injury or cancer risk, unless the Environmental Protection Agency determines the manufacturer withheld information on the warning label.

Supporters say it will cut out red tape saving costs for farmers.

But opponents say it's protecting businesses that are knowingly causing harm.

Our Mackenzie Spink explains.

Pesticides are an integral part of modern farming.

But using them isn't without risk.

Sponsor of Senate Bill 199, Senator Jason Howell says the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, does a rigorous job determining which products are safe.

Therefore, a warning label on approved products is sufficient to warn consumers of risk and protect the company from liability.

The EPA process for approving these pesticides is very complex, very detailed, takes a long time.

We know this when a product comes to market.

The EPA does a full analysis on this.

Conducted primarily through independent laboratories that meet international GLP labs standards.

And then the EPA goes in every 15 years, reviews and certifies this product.

Opponents on both sides of the political aisle say pesticides cause significant harm.

And companies shouldn't be shielded from potential lawsuits.

This product has been shown to cause injury.

And this bill is a bill to say, even though we know that we're going to excuse that and they cannot get sued over that.

I think the people have a right if they were wronged to sue.

And and if a judge rules that a court case should move forward, we should allow that process to move forward, that that is the American way.

And I don't think it's our place to step in and provide protection for companies who should either stand by their product or pay up if it doesn't serve.

Senate President Pro Tem David Givens runs a farm store in his home district.

He says the farmers who use these products receive training on how to safely use them.

I have to keep records of all the pesticides we sell.

I have to certify that a lot of the farmers, depending on the pesticide, have authority to purchase that pesticide, meaning they've had training on proper use, proper application.

So the system has lots of built in safeguards.

Supporters of the bill emphasize the importance of keeping pesticides affordable for Kentucky farmers.

And opponents argue that those farmers are the ones most at risk of injury without legal options.

Senator Aaron Reed says the farmers in his district made their opinion clear.

Mr.

president, I cast and I vote.

You know, I do so reluctantly because I am a champion of medical freedom.

However, I could not find one farmer in my in my district to tell me to vote no on this bill.

Every farmer I talked to begged me to vote yes, because without this product, they cannot make a living.

Senate Bill 199 passed 23 to 13.

Six Democrats and seven Republicans voted no on the measure.

For Kentucky edition, I'm McKenzie Spink.

Thank you.

McKenzie.

According to the news organization Reuters this week, a Missouri state court judge gave initial approval for a class action lawsuit against Bayer for claims that its pesticide product caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The settlement from Bayer would be over $7 billion to the victims.