Pesticides

House Ag Committee Chairman says farm bill pesticide provisions could cause concern in the Senate

Fri, 08 May 2026 18:55:31 GMT

After a flurry of debate, votes and finally movement, the Farm Food and National Security Act of 2026 passed the U.S. House with a 224-200 vote. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson calls the legislation “transformational,” adding that 96% of GOP members in the House, the most in history, and 14 Democrats supported the bill.

“That’s the most members of the minority party who voted for a House farm bill since 2008. So, [that’s] a strong endorsement in a bipartisan way as this bill winds up in the Senate for consideration,” he says.

Despite his optimism, Thompson expressed concern over a key amendment introduced by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna. The addition stripped the farm bill of pesticide liability provisions. Before the amendment, the bill’s original language reaffirmed EPA as the sole agency capable of determining the information listed on a pesticide label. Critics, including Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) advocates, worry the language would shield pesticide manufacturers from liability claims.

“I have some concerns with the pesticide provision that was added,” Thompson says. “I think it may put farmers’ health at risk and certainly drive up affordability and open the door for foreign-manufactured pesticides to flood into our country.

“I have significant concerns that the amendment that was put forward is going to create chaos [in the Senate],” he later added.

Thompson says he’s supportive of year-round E15, but because it falls under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, it will likely be taken up for a vote mid-May.

Moving Forward

Thompson says, overall, he thinks farm bill conversations in the Senate are positive. The chairman says he’s kept Sen. John Boozman, chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, well informed about the bill over the last year.

“I kind of pictured my good friend, John Boozma, with a catcher’s mitt, ready to receive the Farm Food and National Security Act,” Thompson says. “He’ll have to make some modifications, and I think he’s hoping to do that mid- to late May. He knows how ... our farmers need this bill today, not tomorrow or not next year.”

New Legislation Impacting H-2A Reform

Thompson says in three to four weeks, he will likely release draft language for public discussion that would make reforms to the H-2A program. After the draft, he’ll be introducing a bill with bipartisan support, he says.

“We’ve already had some very positive discussions with our [House] Judiciary [Committee] Chairman Jim Jordan — so, [I’m] looking forward to breaking that 45-, almost 50-year gridlock of really not doing anything in this space. I think we have a great opportunity to provide certainty to agriculture workforce, which quite frankly is necessary for both food security and ultimately national security.”

The Pork Industry Responds to EPA’s Rodenticide Strategy

Fri, 06 Dec 2024 18:03:43 GMT

Many people in agriculture fear rodenticides will become even more difficult to access and more expensive to use after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s release of the final biological evaluation, and associated response to comments, for 11 rodenticide active ingredients.

From feral hogs and Norway rats to house mice and ground squirrels, the amount of damage caused by these pests in agricultural and non-agricultural settings alike is astounding. Not only do they cause significant damage to property, crops and food supplies, but these pests also spread disease and pose a serious risk to public health.

EPA says the mitigation measures described in this final biological evaluation will serve as the agency’s Rodenticide Strategy as outlined in EPA’s Endangered Species Act Work plan.

“The Devil will be in the detail, and will vary state by state,” says Michael Formica, chief legal strategist at the National Pork Producers Council. “This strategy is going to undermine use of these important rodenticide tools. Producers will need to be licensed by their states to get them, and we’ll have fewer options at a higher price available.”

Formica says this is just another in the “thousands of over-reaching ill-considered regulations that lead to food price inflation.”

Final Biological Evaluation
The 11 rodenticides evaluated in the biological evaluation include: chlorophacinone; diphacinone and its sodium salt; warfarin and its sodium salt; brodifacoum; bromadiolone; difenacoum; difethialone; bromethalin; cholecalciferol; strychnine; and zinc phosphide.

“These rodenticides are intended to control target animals using different biochemical mechanisms (e.g., neurotoxicity, reduced blood clotting). They also have different properties that affect the types of species that may be impacted,” EPA wrote. “For example, some rodenticides may remain in target animals long enough such that predator or scavenger animals that consume the target animals may be affected. The assessment accounts for these different properties across the 11 rodenticides evaluated in the biological evaluation.”

EPA says the final biological evaluation finds that the currently labeled uses of the 11 rodenticides evaluated remained the same as those in the draft biological evaluation, and:

• Will have no effect on 88% of species and 95% percent of critical habitats
• Are not likely to adversely affect 4-11% of species and 1% of critical habitats
• Are likely to adversely affect 1-8% of listed species and 4% of critical habitat
• Have a likelihood of future Jeopardy/Adverse Modification (J/AM) of less than 5% of listed species and less than 1% of critical habitats

“The final Rodenticide Strategy does not itself impose any requirements or restrictions on pesticide use,” EPA says. “Any mitigation measures needed to address potential likelihood of future J/AM for listed species will only apply in geographically specific areas where listed species with J/AM predictions are located, using EPA’s Bulletins Live! Two system, as part of label language, or in the Terms and Conditions of registration.”

Not all of these measures will be necessary for all uses or products containing these pesticide ingredients, EPA explains in the release. These are measures from which EPA expects to choose when reducing exposure to listed species and their critical habitats, as necessary, for a specific active ingredient, use site, and application method. During formal consultation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will use EPA’s effects determinations to inform their biological opinion(s).

Formica says, “This is an overly-broad regulation that imposes unnecessary costs and an additional burden on producers because of concerns by activists and their allies at EPA over alleged misuses that have nothing to do with ag (their concern is urban and suburban consumers putting too much out indiscriminately).”

Rodenticide Access
Over 10 years ago, there was a previous attempt to ban rodenticide use, Formica recalls. Opponents feared people would see a mouse, run to a local retailer and then throw out a lot of rat poison, potentially impacting other animals.

“Then rodenticides were relabeled for ag use only. They created a minimum size you had to buy so you couldn’t buy a small 1 lb package at a suburban big box hardware store, you had to buy 20 lbs from an ag supplier.,” Formica says.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is the Federal statute that governs the registration, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides in the United States, according to EPA’s website. Generally, before a pesticide may be sold or distributed in the U.S., it must be registered with the EPA. Before EPA may register a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant must show, among other things, that using the pesticide according to specifications “will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.”

“What they want to do is remove it from store shelves entirely, restrict its access unless you are licensed to apply it,” Formica says. “If you are a grain farmer, you’re probably going to have a FIFRA applicator’s license anyway, but not every hog farmer is a grain farmer and not every cattle rancher is a grain farmer, so they’re going to have to go out and get their FIFRA applicator certification, which is done at the state level,” Formica explains.

In addition, losing the retail market for these rodenticides will make them more difficult to buy for those who need them, he explains.

“It won’t be impossible to buy but you are going to have much fewer choices and you will have to buy larger quantities,” Formica says. “The price goes up as well.”

The final biological evaluation is available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0567 on www.regulations.gov.

Your Next Read: Why You Need to Pay Attention Now to EPA’s Proposed Rodenticide Mitigation Measures

Why You Need to Pay Attention Now to EPA’s Proposed Rodenticide Mitigation Measures

Fri, 27 Sep 2024 01:18:51 GMT

Out of sight, out of mind. That theory works for a while until it doesn’t, especially when it comes to rodent control.

“Rodenticide use is like using insecticides. If you don’t see any cockroaches, you don’t worry about them. But once you see one, you throw the bomb at it,” says Larry Delozier, director of national poultry account sales for QC Supply.

Similarly, once you see a mouse or rat, it’s likely you have a big problem on your hands , explains Steve Von Haden, Midwest business manager for Motomco.

“Always assume you have rodents, and you should be putting bait out,” Von Haden says. “All agricultural buildings or structures will have rodents of some type. You just don’t want it to get to such high peaks it causes structural damage, diseases and contamination of food sources .”

Pending regulation could mean agriculture loses critically important tools to protect food security. EPA is proposing significant changes to rodenticides that would result in the canceling of products and uses, add more requirements to the labels, and reclassify some products to restricted use pesticides .

“Regardless of whether you are a livestock producer or citrus grower or manager of a golf course, this will have an impact on your ability to effectively manage a destructive farm pest,” says John Walt Boatright, director of government affairs at American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). “It’s one more challenge in a regulatory environment where challenges continue to grow for the American producer.”

What is EPA Proposing?

On Nov. 29, 2022, the EPA released for public comment new proposed mitigation measures for 11 rodenticides, which if implemented, will have a major impact on all currently available rodenticide products, the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) said on its website . The agency’s proposals are the most significant changes to rodenticides in 15 years that will result in the canceling of products and uses, add more requirements to the labels, and reclassify some products to restricted use pesticides, ARA noted.

EPA’s recommended changes are included in four Proposed Interim Decision documents (PIDs) that cover: 1) the seven anticoagulant rodenticides; 2) bromethalin and cholecalciferol; 3) strychnine; and 4) zinc phosphide.

“EPA’s proposal is quite wide-ranging, and it is going to impact any user of rodenticides and how rodenticides are applied,” Boatright explains. “The challenge is many of EPA’s proposed mitigation measures introduce additional challenges for on-farm application. I don’t know that they will have the intended effect that EPA thinks they’ll have.”

Boatright says this should be very concerning for everyone in the agricultural supply chain who apply rodenticides. Michael Formica, chief legal strategist for the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), says it will also have a negative impact in urban areas where rodent infestation is a major problem.

“This is an example of one area where rural communities can build positive engagement and cooperate with urban communities. As much as rats and rodents are pests on the farm, they are even more so in an urban area,” Formica says. “In the back alleys in DC, you see rats that look like cats racing from one building to another, running around at night. People don’t want to live with them.”

And they shouldn’t have to, Delozier says. Rodent control companies have made effective, safe bait under EPA’s existing stringent restrictions. EPA’s proposed measures will add great cost and will likely be prohibitive for many.

What Does This Mean for Farmers?

If this proposal is enacted, rodenticide users will see many new restrictions.

“The average livestock farmer wouldn’t be able to use them, you would have to go through certification and training in your state,” Formica explains. “If you’ve got a row crop or grain operation, a lot of folks have that certification because they spray pesticides. But most livestock farmers don’t have all those different certifications.”

Certifications would be required annually, which takes a lot of time, paperwork and training.

“If you don’t have that certification, you would need to hire exterminators to come out. That’s expensive and creates its own biosecurity problem because you’re having people come out not just to apply the rat poison, but also pick up the dead rats,” Formica says.

Pick up dead rats? Yes, that’s part of the new measures, too.

“The proposal talks about mandatory carcass searches in the field. That seems to be quite a challenge to expect a farmer or a farm worker to stop what they’re doing and search for rodent carcasses in potentially hundreds or thousands of acres,” Boatright says.

Once the rodent carcasses are found, farmers would be required to not just log them, but also pick them up and dispose of them.

Another limitation of these measures includes the requirement of single-use base stations, which would create a lot of garbage, Formica adds. The bait stations being used today are refillable.

What Will Happen if Rodent Bait Goes Off the Shelves?

“The more regulation you put on farmers, the more resistance you will have and that’s not conducive to the economic engine that is farming and food in the U.S.,” says Mike Slegl, vice president of product sales for QC Supply.

Farmers aren’t misusing product with the intent of controlling other things, Slegl adds. Some believe EPA is rushing to do this because of pressure from environmentalists for Endangered Species Act concerns.

“There is a potential major negative impact of an additional EPA regulation on the true sustainability of livestock production and the livelihood of farms,” Slegl says. “If it’s one more forced hand that overnight becomes more expensive to something they’re already doing, there’s going to be major resistance and people will push towards non-compliance.”

Delozier fears EPA’s rodenticide mitigation measures will ultimately increase the cost of goods to the consumer.

“Whenever we add requirements, there is always a cost that goes into the food system and will eventually cost the consumer more, too,” Delozier says. “Farmers are already using rodenticides that have to be EPA-approved.”

Darrin Karcher, a poultry specialist and associate professor at Purdue University, says it could be a double-edged sword.

“With the larger integrated companies, if they have to pay someone else to do it, they will pay someone because it has to be taken care of. Where it may catch are those individuals doing it themselves who may not have financial depths to pursue having other people take care of application,” Karcher says. “The question becomes, can they find a way to do that?”

An Increased Biosecurity Risk

And what if they can’t? Rodents present a major biosecurity risk for farms. With devastating diseases like Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) in the poultry industry and the threat of deadly foreign animal diseases like African swine fever (ASF) in the pork industry, leaders fear how this could impact the health of the nation’s livestock herds.

“The restricted-use pesticide designation concerns me,” says Matthew Galloway, Midwest sales manager for ag rodenticides with Liphatech Inc. “For the broiler and breeder side of the poultry industry, there are hundreds of thousands of barns all over the U.S. One contract grower often has four or five barns and there may be several thousand barns within each company. If farmers don’t get their license, they will have to hire an outside applicator. Then you run into the risk of biosecurity breaches. We can’t have applicators running through multiple farms over a week’s time, otherwise we’ll really see a massive problem.”

It’s also a major problem if rodents get out of control because farms can’t afford the added cost.

“You can put all the filters you want on the ventilation systems in your barns and be as biosecure of a facility as possible, but if rats can get in and out, they will find a way. They aren’t showering,” Formica says.

What Can You Do?

Every 15 years, pesticides are reviewed by EPA. This rodenticide review is part of a pilot project for EPA as they’re implementing their Endangered Species Act work plan. These mitigation measures seek to achieve compliance with their statutory directives at EPA, following recent court cases directing EPA.

“We will see this approach in reviewing other pesticides as well. Folks need to be prepared to provide input,” he says.

This is a proposed interim decision, Boatright explains. EPA will take comments through Feb. 13 and review them. They will then promulgate a final rule at some point in the future.

“Make your voice heard,” Liphatech’s Galloway says. “We’ve got to do everything we can. Submit comments to EPA.”

Both NPPC and AFBF are gathering feedback and information from its members and will be submitting comments to EPA by the Feb. 13 deadline.

“Weigh in and let elected officials know you value these products. The best thing you can do is call your member of Congress. We’re just coming out of three years of COVID, and there are tremendous human health issues of taking rodenticides off the market,” NPPC’s Formica says.

Read more about the rodent problem.

Congress Returns: Ag Appropriations Bill Takes Priority

Mon, 17 Jul 2023 21:32:53 GMT

The U.S. House of Representatives is bracing for another party-based clash over the funding of the government for the fiscal year (FY) 2024.

Legislators have until Wednesday to propose amendments to the fiscal 2024 Ag appropriations bill, which could lead to test votes on farm bill matters. The measure could begin debate next week.

The House Appropriations Committee is set to debate the FY 2024 Interior-Environment spending bill this week. It proposes significant funding cuts to the EPA and restrictions concerning regulatory changes on pesticides and motor vehicles. The measure has riders that would repeal the Biden administration’s Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule and prevent EPA from approving pesticide labels that differ from conclusions made under a specific review.

Related story: USDA Could Use the Farm Bill’s Conservation Title for Climate Change

The House will also debate a Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill this week, which may result in votes concerning the future of sustainable aviation fuel.