New Pesticide Regulations--How Will They Affect U.S. Agriculture?

U.S. farmers must abide by regulations that govern their farming activities. Such is the case with their use of pesticides that are necessary to protect the crops grown on their farms. Without such pesticides, crop yields would be held hostage by the myriad pests that are a constant threat to crops every growing season. Click here for an article on this website that summarizes the findings contained in a report commissioned by CropLife America to determine just how important the use of pesticides is in U.S. crop production.

It is understood that regulations governing the use of pesticides in agriculture are in place to protect the environment and the consumer of U.S. farm products. However, as an increasing number of restrictions are placed on the use of crop protection pesticides used by farmers, it becomes increasingly harder for them to produce a high-quality crop that provides a positive return on investment.

Following are brief summaries of the content contained in the linked articles that provide an assessment of how the Environmental Protection Agency’s [EPA] recent implementation of regulatory changes regarding pesticide use will affect U.S. farmers.

In an article titled “Agroeconomic costs for meeting the EPA’s mitigation menu approach to pesticide regulation“, the following points are presented.

•   In Jan. 2022, the EPA began implementing changes in the process for registering new pesticides and re-registering existing pesticides.

•   A significant change in the process was the introduction of a list of suggested mitigation measures that pesticide applicators could choose from to reduce exposure to pesticides of species listed in the Endangered Species Act [ESA].

•   It is likely that these new measures will mean that many U.S. farmers will no longer be in compliance with regard to pesticide applications.

•   The above-linked article identifies and evaluates the complexities that will arise from the proposed mitigation approach, including increased costs to producers. The costs associated with adoption of many of the mitigation measures may be prohibitive to farmers–e.g. added costs associated with adoption of any of the mitigation measures without a commensurate monetary return to the producer will reduce or completely negate any profit potential, which will likely result in the abandonment of a conservation production system.

•   A specific example of how the required adoption of a mitigation measure could affect how a producer farms is the switching from conventional tillage to conservation tillage, which likely uses a herbicide to replace tillage for weed control prior to planting a crop. A required mitigation measure involving the use of a burndown herbicide prior to planting could force a farmer to return to conventional tillage for weed control. Since the conservation/soil health benefits of minimum/no-till vs. conventional tillage are well-known, this is a concern.

•   Finally, 1) the menu of mitigation measures range in cost, which will affect their adoption, and 2) if the adoption of a mitigation measure results in a saving of time, labor, and money, then its adoption will be positive. Conversely, if the potential adoption of a mitigation measure results in a cost that cannot be or is not recouped, then its adoption will be uneconomical to the producer and either the production site will be abandoned or the intended use of the site will be changed.

•   Click here for a schematic of EPA’s menu of suggested mitigation measures for pesticide applicators to choose from.

Scott Gerlt authored an article titled “EPA Pesticide Proposal Would Significantly Affect Millions of Soy Acres“ in which he provides the following information about how EPA’s proposal(s) would affect U.S. soybean farmers.

•   One of the EPA proposals could hinder or prevent pesticide use on over 5 million soybean acres.

•   The broad approach the EPA is proposing as part of the Vulnerable Species Pilot Project [VSPP] would significantly inhibit agriculture on a large amount of land.

•   Coordination with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services [FWS] will be required before applying pesticides to an avoidance area so as to ensure no more than a minor effect of the application on a protected species. The required time of an advance notice to FWS of such action by a producer will be difficult to impossible to fulfill.

•   Producers will be responsible for determining if the habitat of a protected species fits the criterion for mitigation measure(s).

•   Several mitigation criteria are beyond the control of the producer, and many of the required mitigation measures are prohibitively expensive to implement.

•   Farmers who choose to utilize conservation practices that depend on herbicides for success will find it more costly to implement or continue them.

•   Bottom line–EPA’s broad approach to accomplish ESA compliance likely will result in millions of acres of farmland being removed from production because of 1) the prohibition to use pesticides on those acres, or 2) the high cost of mitigation measures that will be required before a pesticide can be applied to affected acres.

EPA’s effort to regulate herbicide use in agriculture can be accessed here and here. This strategy is part of EPA’s larger plan to improve meeting its ESA obligations regarding the application of pesticides, and includes mitigation requirements for registration/re-registration of herbicides used in agriculture.

The above narrative barely touches the surface of how EPA’s new guidelines for pesticide use will affect U.S. farmers. Therefore, this country’s soybean producers should keep abreast of new developments in this area to ensure that their ability to produce an economical and high yielding crop of soybeans is maintained for the foreseeable future.

Composed by Larry G. Heatherly, July 2024, larryh91746@gmail.com