Lawmakers hear clashing views on neonicotinoids and second‑generation rodenticides

A long string of stakeholders told the Environment Committee on Oct. 27 that Connecticut faces a tough choice about regulating two widely used classes of pesticides.

The first is neonicotinoids, insecticides widely used as seed treatments and foliar sprays. Agricultural representatives urged caution, noting farms that rely on treated seed and saying some treated seeds help protect specialty and row crops in ways they said have no current cost‑effective alternative. Farmer Keith Bishop and others asked the committee to preserve specialized uses for trees and ornamentals while allowing new regulatory paths.

Farmers and growers testified that seed treatments on corn, squash and other crops are an important tool in integrated pest management. "If you remove them without alternatives, it threatens yields and forces heavier‑duty spray programs," one agricultural witness said.

Scientists and conservation groups countered that neonicotinoids are pervasive in water and soil, persist for years and are linked in academic studies to declines in pollinators and aquatic insects. Kim Stoner, an entomologist who worked at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, and other researchers urged the committee to restrict coated row‑crop seeds and to use the state experiment station to produce a Connecticut‑specific literature review before making narrow exceptions.

The second class of chemicals is second‑generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SCARs). Environmental groups and wildlife rescue groups argued that SCARs, when used indiscriminately by untrained users, can poison non‑target wildlife — raptors, mammals — through secondary exposure. They asked the committee to reclassify SCARs as restricted use, which would limit sales and require them to be handled only by trained applicators.

Pest‑control industry representatives and some farmers supported restricted‑use status as a practical compromise. "Reclassifying SCARs would prevent over‑the‑counter purchases and ensure controls are applied by licensed professionals," said Mark Kaelbacher of the Connecticut Pest Control Association. The industry urged training and a tracking system for retail sales rather than an outright ban.

Many witnesses asked the committee to proceed on a dual track: adopt restrictions on widespread consumer access now, while funding the state experiment station to analyze treated seed uses and provide a Connecticut‑specific evidence base to guide longer‑term policy.

The committee did not vote on pesticide bills during the hearing. Lawmakers repeatedly asked for more scientific analyses, and some members signaled support for reclassifying SCARs as restricted use while they sought a clearer, consensus path for any seed‑treatment limitations.