Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
This bill amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to require the Administrator of the EPA to coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture when imposing risk mitigation measures on registered pesticides. It requires EPA to publish an economic analysis of the costs to growers, State lead agencies, and other affected entities and to assess costs and benefits including how mitigation reduces user risk.
Liberals worry the bill gives agriculture and industry too much influence and could weaken environmental and public-health protections; conservatives see it as necessary accountability and protection for growers.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused administrative/operational amendment to FIFRA that prescribes coordination obligations, mandated economic analysis and publication, data-sharing expectations with USDA, and coordination regarding ESA reasonable and prudent measures.
This bill amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to require the Administrator of the EPA to coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture when imposing risk mitigation measures on registered pesticides.
It requires EPA to publish an economic analysis of the costs to growers, State lead agencies, and other affected entities and to assess costs and benefits including how mitigation reduces user risk.
The bill also mandates that EPA obtain agronomic use data from USDA and industry and information on availability and economic viability of alternatives, and to publish how that information was used (or why it was not used).
On content alone, the bill is a modest, administratively focused change that could be attractive to agriculture and industry and is phrased as coordination and transparency rather than wholesale deregulatory action. However, it touches on contentious areas (pesticide oversight and ESA implementation), introduces procedural hurdles that could delay or complicate EPA regulatory actions, and lacks clear built-in bipartisan guarantees; these factors make enactment plausible if attached to a larger legislative vehicle or negotiated with stakeholders, but not highly likely on its own.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused administrative/operational amendment to FIFRA that prescribes coordination obligations, mandated economic analysis and publication, data-sharing expectations with USDA, and coordination regarding ESA reasonable and prudent measures. It sets several concrete documentary and interagency steps but leaves key procedural and resourcing details unspecified.
Liberals worry the bill gives agriculture and industry too much influence and could weaken environmental and public-health protections; conservatives see it as necessary accountability and protection for growers.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals worry the bill gives agriculture and industry too much influence and could weaken environmental and public-health protections; conservatives see it as necessary accountability and protection for growers.
A mainstream liberal would likely view this bill with caution.
While coordination and transparency can be positive, the bill shifts significant emphasis to economic analyses and to USDA and industry-provided agronomic data, which could dilute or delay EPA’s ability to act on environmental and public-health risks.
The requirement to consider how mitigation reduces user risk and to provide feedback to Interior and Commerce on ESA measures may be seen as inserting agricultural/economic priorities into processes intended to protect ecosystems and public health.
A centrist would view the bill as a pragmatic effort to improve interagency coordination and to bring economic realities into regulatory decision-making, while also raising some process and timing concerns.
They would appreciate transparency (publication of analyses and explanations) but worry about possible added bureaucracy or delays and whether scientific rigor is preserved.
The centrist would weigh the value of better data and stakeholder input against the risk that coordination becomes a vehicle for slowing protective actions or privileging industry-provided information.
A mainstream conservative would likely view the bill favorably as it increases the role of the Department of Agriculture and growers’ interests in pesticide decisions and requires EPA to account for economic impacts.
They would see coordination and mandatory economic analysis as improving regulatory accountability and protecting agricultural livelihoods from overly burdensome or impractical restrictions.
Some conservatives might still watch for any new paperwork or constraints on registrants, but overall this persona would see the bill as promoting predictability and reducing unilateral regulatory action by EPA.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, the bill is a modest, administratively focused change that could be attractive to agriculture and industry and is phrased as coordination and transparency rather than wholesale deregulatory action. However, it touches on contentious areas (pesticide oversight and ESA implementation), introduces procedural hurdles that could delay or complicate EPA regulatory actions, and lacks clear built-in bipartisan guarantees; these factors make enactment plausible if attached to a larger legislative vehicle or negotiated with stakeholders, but not highly likely on its own.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals worry the bill gives agriculture and industry too much influence and could weaken environmental and public-health protections; con…
On content alone, the bill is a modest, administratively focused change that could be attractive to agriculture and industry and is phrased…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused administrative/operational amendment to FIFRA that prescribes coordination obligations, mandated economic analysis and publication, data-sharing expectat…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.