Committee reviews bill to recast fertilizer- and soil-related terms as ‘beneficial substances’; labeling, registration, and biosolids discussed

A legislative committee reviewed draft changes to state law that would consolidate several product categories—"plant amendment," "plant biostimulant" and "soil amendment"—under a single term, "beneficial substance," and add related registration, labeling and enforcement provisions.

The measure would adopt a definition of "beneficial substance" to mean "any substance or compound, other than primary, secondary, and micro plant nutrients and excluding pesticides, that can be demonstrated by scientific research to be beneficial to one or more species of plant, soil or growth media." The draft also adds specific new definitions (for example, "plant inoculant" and "soil inoculant") and directs the agency secretary to oversee registration, labeling and enforcement.

Why it matters: the rewrite would bring the state into closer alignment with a uniform model being adopted by other states while expanding the agency's registration and labeling authority for a wider range of products. Committee members flagged possible tradeoffs between regulatory clarity and administrative flexibility, raised questions about fees and enforcement, and sought confirmation that the existing regulatory regime for land application of septic-derived biosolids remains with the Agency of Natural Resources.

Committee discussion and technical details

Committee members and staff walked through the bill's major changes in sequence: consolidating terminology, adding explicit definitions for inoculants and biostimulants, expanding label content requirements, and spelling out inspection, misbranding and adulteration standards. The draft would require annual registration of products defined as beneficial substances before they are distributed in the state, and would allow the secretary to request proof of testing or efficacy data prior to registration.

Labeling requirements discussed in committee would require registrants to provide a statement of composition identifying ingredients and the agent primarily responsible for the product's intended effect. Products that include microorganisms would also be required to show an expiration date and storage conditions on the label.

The draft includes enforcement tools already used in related law: inspection authority to enter premises and sample products; authority to cancel or suspend registrations; detention and condemnation of adulterated products; and administrative penalties for mislabeling or failing to report required information.

On adulteration and enforcement, committee staff summarized the standard the agency would use: "A product's determined to be adulterated if it contains any deleterious or harmful ingredient in an amount sufficient to render it injurious to beneficial plant life, animals, humans, aquatic life, soil, or water," (Mike, staff member).

Fees, funds and registration mechanics

Committee discussion covered registration fees and tonnage fees. Staff explained that fertilizer-related tonnage fees described in the draft would flow into the existing Feed, Seed, and Fertilizer Fund, which the agency uses to run the related programs; a portion of certain non‑ag fertilizer fees is allocated to the Clean Water Fund to support agricultural water‑quality work. During the discussion a draft fee level was questioned; staff noted the registration fee could be adjusted (a $100 fee was raised as an option for later consideration) and advised coordinating with Ways and Means and the administration if fee levels are changed.

Committee staff reported the tonnage/fee structure discussed in the draft as presented in committee: a $150 minimum tonnage fee for fertilizer dealers, plus an approximate per‑ton fee described in committee as about $0.50 per ton for agricultural fertilizer distribution and about $0.30 per ton for nonagricultural fertilizer distribution. Committee members asked staff to confirm those amounts and the budgetary implications with Ways and Means and the administration.

Biosolids and scope of this chapter

Several members raised concerns about whether the bill would change the state's oversight of septic- or sludge-derived products. The committee was told that the bill is focused on product registration and labeling and does not reassign land‑application permitting authority away from the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR). As explained in committee: "This is about registering the products that could be land applied, but the actual land application of septic sludge and biosolids is regulated by ANR under Title 10," (Mike, staff member).

Points of concern and follow-up items

Members flagged a clause in the draft that would allow the secretary to determine whether "other chemical or biological substances" fall within the beneficial‑substance definition. Representative Bost asked, "What is a beneficial chemical substance? I don't know what that means, or I can't envision what that would be." Several members asked staff to solicit agency input about the intent and scope of that phrase and whether an additional definitional guardrail should be added to limit open‑ended delegation.

Committee staff said the draft follows a uniform model in several respects but that the legislature can add or remove language; they recommended highlighting the chemical/biological phrase for further agency comment and, separately, confirming the registration‑fee level with Ways and Means and the administration.

Next steps

Committee members agreed to flag the "chemical or biological" phrase and to follow up with agency staff for clarification before the bill returns to the committee. The draft as discussed in committee lists an effective date of July 1, but members noted fee levels and some definitional language remain to be finalized.

Ending

The discussion closed with members asking staff to check back with agency drafters about the scope of "beneficial substance" and to confirm the proposed fee mechanics and fund flows before committee action.