Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Witnesses warn EPA research cuts will slow science, delay approvals
Loading...
Summary
Witnesses at a House Agriculture Committee hearing said administration cuts to EPA scientists and the elimination of the agency's Office of Research and Development threaten regulatory capacity, slow product reviews and undermine public confidence in food-safety decisions.
House Agriculture Committee members heard unified warnings that recent White House changes at the Environmental Protection Agency are eroding the federal science base regulators rely on to assess pesticides and new agricultural technologies.
Panelists emphasized that the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and career scientists provide the technical foundation regulators use to judge risks and set conditions for safe use. "Reducing the number of scientists at the EPA doesn't change the regulatory system. It just leads to worse customer service and longer wait times," Ranking Member Craig said during opening remarks.
Why it matters: ORD conducts long-running environmental and human-health research and provides technical assistance to states, tribes and other agencies. Witnesses said cuts to ORD staff or shifting scientists into a smaller, new office will slow the technical reviews that underpin pesticide decisions and other approvals, contributing to the registration backlogs and regulatory uncertainty described elsewhere in the hearing.
What witnesses said: Terry Abbott, chairman of the Council of Producers and Distributors of Agrotechnology, testified that EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is underfunded and understaffed, and he tied that shortfall to slow reviews. "We strongly support full funding for EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs," Abbott said. Don Cameron, a California specialty crop grower, told the committee that uncertainty and interrupted research funding in state and federal programs already disrupts projects at university research centers.
Several members and witnesses linked staffing cuts to broader concerns about scientific integrity. Ranking Member Craig criticized the Maha Commission report and administrative actions that she said had resulted in firing technical staff and reducing confidence in regulatory decisions: "Errors and misinformation like these have consequences. It undermines Americans' trust in the food we eat," she said.
Context and evidence: Panelists pointed to concrete effects: longer review timelines at OPP, stalled registrations of novel and post-patent products, and slowed validation trials at land-grant universities. Dr. Carl Wyant of Nutrien described the regulatory uncertainty facing new classes of inputs (biostimulants) and urged a statutory definition to reduce a patchwork of state rules.
What they recommended: Witnesses urged Congress to fund EPA fully, preserve and staff scientific units, and ensure regulatory pathways are science-based and timely. Several witnesses also recommended better interagency coordination and stronger support for land-grant research to preserve the technical capacity needed to evaluate new technologies.
Looking ahead: Committee members signaled they will keep the record open and consider funding and statutory fixes during the next farm bill and appropriations cycles. Absent additional staff and research capacity, witnesses warned, review delays and diminished scientific capacity could slow deployment of technologies farmers say they need.
Ending: The hearing closed with calls from both sides for more scientific staffing and better-funded research programs to keep the U.S. regulatory system predictable and grounded in evidence.
