Agency proposes best-management practices for neonicotinoid-treated seed and neonic pesticides

The Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets on Feb. 6 submitted a proposed rule establishing recommended best-management practices for neonicotinoid-treated seed and neonicotinoid pesticides, agency staff told a legislative committee.

The proposed rule implements provisions of Act 145 (2022) as amended by Act 182 and aims to reduce non-target exposures to neonics while preserving options for growers. Morton Griffith, agrochemical program manager in the agency's Farm Division, said the BMPs are drawn from Ag Innovation Board recommendations, prior research and product label directions.

"The purpose is these are best management practices, BMPs, for the appropriate use of neonic treated seeds and neonic pesticides," Griffith said. He summarized two supporting documents: a resource list of treated-seed BMPs and a chart the Ag Innovation Board used to categorize and cite specific practices.

The draft separates seed and pesticide guidance. For treated seed the proposal references seed-tag and product-label language and lists practical steps such as planting treated seed at a depth greater than 1.5 to 2 inches, recovering spilled seed, avoiding broadcasting, and not composting or recycling treated seed containers. The presentation cited an example seed tag and noted that some label language advises growers to "avoid planting when rain is forecast within 48 hours," to use functioning planters and to collect spilled treated seed.

The agency described a yearly-use example from a product label that counts planted treated seed toward an annual active-ingredient limit of 0.1 pounds per acre and explicitly states that planting treated seed "cannot be followed by a spray treatment of another neonic insecticide" under that product's restrictions.

Griffith said the initial draft set applicability to treated seed "used prior to 01/01/2031," a date that staff flagged can be changed in rulemaking because the statute's effective provision is tied to 2029. Committee members raised the discrepancy and asked the agency to reconcile the statutory date during the drafting process.

For neonic pesticides the draft reiterates that product labels and the existing pesticide rule are mandatory: "any use of a neonic pesticide shall be in compliance with the product label and the pesticide rule," Griffith said. The proposed BMPs for pesticides emphasize integrated pest management (scouting, thresholds, alternative methods), drift reduction (apply in favorable weather, maintain buffers, calibrate equipment), spill containment and runoff prevention (avoid applications when rain is imminent; maintain vegetative buffers). The agency presented label excerpts for an imidacloprid product with wind-speed and temperature inversion restrictions and a 25-foot ground / 50-foot aerial buffer from water bodies.

The draft also includes pollinator-protection measures and notification requirements. Agency staff pointed to existing rule language requiring notification to beekeepers when pesticides are applied to flowering crops and to labeled limits such as "do not apply while bees are foraging" or crop-specific prohibitions (for example, some labels disallow use during bloom or within 10 days prior to bloom). Griffith said exemption orders can include BMPs as permit conditions, making them mandatory for that permitted use.

For technical clarification on label obligations, See Royal of the agency's medical department said: "When a product is approved by EPA, it could be applied as a seed treated. Part of the requirement is that if you apply that treatment to the seed, you have to include the information from the pesticide label on the seed's tag." Michael Grady, a staff member who addressed rulemaking review, described the multi-step administrative process the agency faces and the legislative committee review: he noted agencies submit rules to the Interagency Committee on Administrative Rules (ICAR) and later to the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (LCAR), which can object.

"One of the first things I would have said is that the rule conflicts with the statutory authority," Grady said, citing the draft's date mismatch as an example of a potential inconsistency LCAR would raise. He explained that an LCAR objection is often a fixable procedural issue but can lead to litigation if not addressed.

Agency staff told the committee they had circulated the draft to potentially affected state agencies in early April and had recently met with ANR divisions to incorporate comments; Griffith said the agency anticipated filing the revised proposal for ICAR consideration in May. Committee members asked for clarification on terms drawn from the general pesticide rule, integrated pest management definitions and availability of untreated seed.

The presentation included stakeholder input the Ag Innovation Board considered: the board recommended more research and grower education and noted limited availability, at the time, of non-neonic treated seed. The agency's draft therefore retains multiple "should" (recommended) statements where practicality or seed availability may limit compliance, and retains "shall" (mandatory) language where the pesticide rule or product labels create enforceable duties.

Next steps described to the committee: the agency will incorporate agency comments, refine statutory references and file the rule for interagency review. The committee discussion identified two recurring issues for follow-up: the statutory effective date for treated-seed provisions, and clarifying which BMPs will remain recommended versus which can be made mandatory through exemption orders or label/regulatory authority.

A full list of the draft rule's BMPs, cited labels and the Ag Innovation Board's chart will be part of the filing package the agency submits to ICAR; the agency projected an ICAR appearance in May and subsequent transmittal to LCAR for legislative review.