EPA pesticide safety decisions now require farm industry sign-off

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.
• By requiring EPA to assess 'reduction in risk to the pesticide user' (farmer) rather than consumer/environmental risk, the bill reframes pesticide safety around applicator convenience, not public exposure or ecological harm.
• The bill does not require Agriculture to justify its data or recommendations, only EPA to justify why it rejected them—creating asymmetric burden that favors the status quo of pesticide use.

Who it affects

The bill systematically privileges agricultural and industry interests over public health and environmental protection by requiring EPA to conduct cost-benefit analyses favoring pesticide use, incorporate industry data into safety decisions, and justify restrictions to farmers. It creates procedural barriers to EPA action and allows Agriculture and industry to waive coordination requirements, effectively giving them veto power over pesticide safety measures.

Who stands to gain

• pesticide manufacturers
• agricultural chemical companies
• large-scale commodity farmers
• agricultural input suppliers

Named in the bill

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), USDA (Department of Agriculture), Secretary of Agriculture, Office of Pest Management Policy, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Commerce, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Endangered Species Act, Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

Where it stands

1 cosponsor: 1 Republicans.

• Sep 26, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Sep 26, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Agriculture · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.