HB0809 shields Bayer and pesticide companies from lawsuits in Tennessee, even if their products cause harm—so long as the EPA approved the label. Critics say it’s corporate immunity disguised as policy and strips Tennesseans of their right to justice.
By TruthWire News – April 7, 2025
The Tennessee General Assembly is moving forward with House Bill 0809, a bill that critics say does not protect farmers or public safety—but instead serves as a legal shield for multinational pesticide manufacturers, led by Bayer, the German chemical giant that now owns Monsanto and its widely-used glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup.
HB0809, sponsored by Rep. Rusty Grills (R-D77, Newbern) and co-sponsored by Rep. Chris Todd (R-D73, Jackson), Rep. Johnny Shaw (D-D80, Bolivar), and Rep. Chris Hurt (R-D82, Halls), would prohibit Tennessee citizens from filing civil lawsuits against pesticide companies for harm caused by product labeling, as long as the label in question was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
On its face, the bill appears technical and procedural. In practice, it shuts the courtroom door on any Tennessean harmed by a pesticide, even when companies fail to provide adequate warnings or when new research uncovers health risks that labels failed to disclose. It would apply retroactively to all of the 15,441 pesticides registered in Tennessee and preemptively to any new chemicals developed in the future.
The only requirement for immunity? That the label be EPA-approved—a standard many legal and health experts argue is increasingly unreliable and deeply compromised.
The Real Beneficiary: Bayer, Not Farmers
Let’s be clear: this bill was not born in a cornfield in West Tennessee. It was drafted at the request of Bayer, the pharmaceutical and chemical conglomerate currently fighting over 170,000 lawsuits tied to the health impacts of Roundup.
Facing mounting legal costs and a potential avalanche of future claims, Bayer has begun a state-by-state lobbying campaign to pass so-called “label shield” laws like HB0809. The strategy is simple: use federal label approval as a legal firewall to block liability at the state level.
This isn’t speculation. Bayer is represented in Tennessee by the Bivens lobbying group, whose political action committee has given thousands in campaign contributions to lawmakers, including $12,000 to Senator John Stevens, the sponsor of the Senate companion bill SB527.
Meanwhile, Bayer is actively developing a glyphosate-replacement pesticide—a potentially billion-dollar product the company wants to release by 2028, and they are already lobbying to ensure its legally bulletproof before it even hits the market.
This is not about Tennessee agriculture. It’s about protecting a corporate pipeline of future profit from legal accountability.
Dr. Ken Berry: “This Isn’t About Safety—It’s About Immunity”
In an op-ed in a recent report, Tennessee family physician Dr. Ken Berry, who has cared for patients across the state for more than two decades, cut to the core of the issue:
“This bill would make it nearly impossible for someone in our state to hold a pesticide company accountable in court—even if their product caused real harm… It’s not about banning anything. It’s not about regulation. It’s about preserving the right to seek justice when someone is harmed.”
Berry and other medical professionals point out that many EPA approvals rely on industry-supplied data, and that the agency’s own scientific assessments have been found wanting. In 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the EPA to re-examine its conclusion that glyphosate is “not likely” to cause cancer, stating that the agency’s decision contradicted its own internal documentation and lacked transparency.
Despite this, Bayer continues to market glyphosate-based products—and under HB809, they would be immune from lawsuits in Tennessee, even if their product causes long-term illness, death, or environmental destruction.
During committee testimony, Bernadette Pajer of Stand for Health Freedom directly addressed the rhetorical trick behind the bill’s framing:
“The manufacturer is trying to confuse lawmakers by making the argument about product labeling,” she said, calling the tactic “evil brilliance.”
Pajer’s warning cuts to the heart of the strategy: By focusing on the bureaucratic process of EPA label approval, proponents sidestep the actual harm done to people—and mask the fact that labels can be inadequate, outdated, or influenced by the very companies being shielded.
Gardenhire’s Outburst: A Glimpse at the Mindset
During a recent committee hearing on the Senate version of the bill, Senator Todd Gardenhire (R-Chattanooga)made headlines for an outburst directed at members of the public who quietly expressed disapproval during the proceedings.
“If any of you SOBs want to snap your fingers, get the hell out of this committee,” Gardenhire said, before adding:
“It’s totally irresponsible, it’s rude and it’s stupid. That’s with three O’s in the middle. Say it out loud—stooopid.”
The remarks were not just inappropriate—they were telling. They revealed the deep hostility some lawmakers have toward citizens who challenge the influence of powerful lobbies.
Gardenhire ultimately voted for the bill.
The contrast was jarring: a senator angrily chastising voters for nonverbal protest, while calmly advancing legislation that would strip those same voters of their right to justice if they are harmed by a chemical product.
The Constitutional Undercurrent
Opponents argue that HB809 is a direct attack on Tennessee’s state constitution, specifically Article I, Section 6 and Section 17, which protect the right to a jury trial and legal recourse for injury. The bill also brushes aside the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to a civil jury trial in common law claims.
By tying immunity to federal label approval, the bill sets a dangerous precedent: it outsources state-level justice to the EPA, an agency with a long and well-documented history of industry capture and regulatory failure.
The courts—not federal bureaucrats—should be the venue where Tennesseans seek redress when they are harmed. This bill would eliminate that pathway entirely.
HB809 is scheduled for a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on April 9. If passed there, it would head to the full House for a vote. The Senate version, SB527, is already advancing.
Public backlash has been fierce. From conservative farmers to environmental advocates to constitutional attorneys, a growing chorus is warning lawmakers: this bill does not protect Tennesseans—it protects corporations from Tennesseans.
If the bill becomes law, it would mark one of the most significant expansions of corporate legal immunity in Tennessee history—one driven not by grassroots need, but by a multinational company with everything to gain and nothing to lose.
As Dr. Berry aptly put it:
“If a product is truly safe, why do the companies behind it need immunity from lawsuits?”
Contact your legislators TODAY and tell them to vote NO on HB0809!!!
TruthWire will continue tracking HB809, its corporate sponsors, and the lawmakers who choose to side with them over the people they were elected to represent.
If you support what I do, please consider donating a gift in order to sustain free, independent, and TRULY CONSERVATIVE media that is focused on Middle Tennessee and BEYOND!
Comments ()