Vermont agriculture committee hears industry concerns about neonic-treated seed, PFAS and market impacts

Representatives of pesticide manufacturers and agribusiness trade groups told the Vermont House Committee on Agriculture on March (date not specified) that the state's ban on neonicotinoid-treated seed and current PFAS proposals could reduce seed choices for Vermont farmers, complicate feed supplies and force greater pesticide spraying.

The industry witnesses said the treated-seed restriction, which they noted mirrors New York's approach and is scheduled for implementation Jan. 1, 2029, risks leaving Vermont farmers with fewer seed hybrids adapted to the state's cooler, shorter growing season. Jean Harrington, senior director of state government affairs for food and agriculture at the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), said, "we just don't know how this law is going to shake out" because individual companies are still determining whether they can supply non‑neonic treated seed to Vermont growers.

Why it matters: Vermont is a small share of the U.S. seed market and has a cooler, shorter season that limits hybrid choices, speakers said. Margaret Lagos, a lobbyist with decades of experience in Vermont agriculture, said corn seed varieties suitable for Vermont are already limited and removing a common treatment further narrows options. "If we have to buy in corn in any given year, it's a complete disaster for a farm," Lagos said, adding that "about 80% of the overall cost of producing milk in Vermont is the feed that we have." The witnesses warned that fewer locally suitable seed options could increase farm costs and shift phosphorus and other inputs into the state when feed is purchased from outside Vermont.

Industry testimony and technical context: Stephanie Pizzaparato, who leads state government affairs for CropLife America in the Eastern U.S., described treated seed as a long‑developed technology that takes an average of 12 years to move from research to EPA registration and said treated seed reduces the need for foliar spraying. "It's a targeted application of the pesticide at the end of the day," said Mike Helzer of BASF Corporation. John Gaeta, senior director of government affairs for RISE, said specialty‑use products cover noncrop settings such as lawns, mosquito control and public health, and that the ban affects a broad set of users beyond row crops.

Regulatory and timing issues: Witnesses said the Vermont law's effective date and regulatory details create practical timing problems for farmers and seed dealers. A committee member noted that farmers generally must choose seed in the fall preceding a ban year; that timing means growers will need to decide in fall 2028 what to buy for 2029 planting seasons. Jean Harrington flagged a specific provision in the Vermont statute that allows the Agency of Agriculture to rescind exemptions after a farmer has purchased neonic‑treated seed, calling that provision "incredibly mean‑spirited" because it could leave farmers holding seed they were previously authorized to use.

PFAS and pesticides: Witnesses also addressed pending PFAS measures. Stephanie Pizzaparato and John Gaeta said only a minority of pesticide products contain intentionally added PFAS (they cited roughly 13–16% as the industry estimate) and urged lawmakers to preserve a FIFRA‑based exemption for registered pesticide products. Lagos and other witnesses emphasized differentiating persistent PFAS chemistries from other fluorinated molecules and noted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and federal FIFRA process already require extensive testing.

Pollinator concerns and evidence: The group pushed back on claims that treated seed had driven pollinator declines in Vermont, saying state and federal data do not show a clear causal link. Lagos pointed to Agency of Agriculture sampling of pollen at hive entrances that did not detect neonicotinoids as a dominant driver and noted that beekeeper testimony to the committee described healthy hives on farms that use treated seed. Gaeta and others cautioned that multiple stressors — varroa mites, weather and hive management — are better supported in the evidence as threats to bee health.

Uncertainty and next steps: Witnesses said companies are still deciding how to supply Vermont growers and that the statute's linkage to New York's regulatory process means changes in New York could alter what ultimately happens in Vermont. Several committee members said they want additional testimony from other stakeholders, including beekeepers and farmers, before making any policy adjustments. Committee members and witnesses agreed to continue the discussion and bring additional perspectives to future hearings.

Ending note: No formal motions or votes were recorded during the session; committee members asked staff to schedule additional testimony so the panel can review data and competing perspectives before considering legislative changes.