The Vermont Senate Agriculture Committee February 18 discussed the impending ban on neonicotinoid-treated seeds. The committee heard from several stakeholders, including lobbyists and representatives from agricultural companies and organizations.

Some committee members said they would like to revisit the ban on neonicotinoid-treated seeds, set to take effect in Vermont in 2029. The Legislature last year passed Act 182 by overriding a veto by Gov. Phil Scott.

Neonicotinoids are a class of neurotoxic, systemic insecticides that (the laws says) are extremely toxic to bees and other pollinators. However, Scott and other opponents of the bill said the threat is overstated and could harm Vermont food production. 

Impact on Farmers: Margaret Laggis, a lobbyist with 35 years of experience in Vermont agricultural issues, highlighted the challenges Vermont farmers face due to the state’s unique climate and conservation practices. She noted that the ban would further restrict the already limited selection of hybrid traits available to Vermont farmers, potentially impacting corn production, a crucial component of dairy farming.

Small Market Share: Gene Harrington from the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) emphasized the disparity in market size, noting that some Iowa counties purchase more seed than the entire state of Vermont, creating difficulties for companies in providing non-neonic treated seeds to Vermont farmers.

Exemption Concerns: Harrington also raised concerns about a provision in the Vermont law that allows the Agency of Agriculture to rescind exemptions granted to farmers for purchasing and using neonic-treated seeds, calling it “mean spirited”.

Potential Consequences: Michael Helzer from BASF suggested that the ban could lead to increased use of older, less effective pesticides and more foliar applications.

Pollinator Health: Committee members and stakeholders discussed the rationale behind the ban, which was largely based on concerns about pollinator health. However, some argued that data does not conclusively link neonicotinoid use to declining bee populations, with other factors like varroa mites, weather conditions, and beehive management playing more significant roles.

New York Connection: A committee member noted that Vermont’s ban is tied to New York State’s regulations, meaning that if New York delays or repeals its ban, Vermont’s law would be affected.

Reconsideration: Committee members expressed interest in revisiting the ban, with a focus on data-driven decision-making and hearing all sides of the issue.

PFAS and Pesticide Regulation

The committee also touched on the topic of PFAS and pesticide regulation. Stephanie Pizzoferrato from CropLife America noted the importance of a FIFRA exemption for pesticides containing PFAS, emphasizing the rigorous testing and approval processes these products undergo. John Gaeta from RISE added that a broad definition of PFAS could capture pesticides with different carbon structures that behave differently and are in use for specific reasons. Stakeholders cautioned against a blanket regulatory approach, emphasizing the need to consider the specific properties and environmental impacts of different PFAS molecules.

This report was sourced from the GoldenDomeVT transcript of the Feb. 18 meeting, rewritten with the help of AI, then edited by VDC staff.