EPA pesticide safety decisions now require farm industry sign-off
H.R. 5564 — To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to provide for improved coordination between the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of Agriculture, and for other purposes. · Filed by Jodey Arrington (R-TX) · 1 cosponsor · Introduced Sep 26, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill amends federal pesticide law to require the EPA to coordinate with the Department of Agriculture before imposing new pesticide restrictions or risk-mitigation measures. The EPA must conduct economic analyses showing costs to farmers and consider agricultural data and industry input when deciding whether to restrict pesticides, and must publish its reasoning if it declines to use Agriculture Department data. The bill also allows the EPA, Agriculture, and pesticide registrants to jointly waive coordination requirements.
Why we flagged it
Despite its title emphasizing 'coordination,' the bill's actual mechanism subordinates EPA health/environmental authority to agricultural and industry interests by requiring cost-benefit analyses, industry data incorporation, and joint waiver authority that effectively slow or block pesticide restrictions.
What the text implies
- The requirement to conduct economic analyses and publish reasoning for rejecting Agriculture data creates a procedural burden that may chill EPA action on pesticides, even when health/environmental evidence is strong, because EPA must now justify why farmer costs don't outweigh public health.
- The 'waiver' provision allowing EPA, Agriculture, and the registrant to jointly agree to skip coordination is functionally a veto: if industry and Agriculture agree, they can block transparency and coordination, turning a coordination mandate into a deregulation tool.
The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
pesticide manufacturers; agricultural chemical companies; large-scale commodity farmers