House committee hears broad testimony on bill to limit neonicotinoid pesticide use
Loading...
Summary
Representatives, agency staff, scientists and dozens of public witnesses told the Environment and Agriculture Committee that neonicotinoids threaten pollinators, aquatic life and human exposure. Sponsor Rep. John T. McDonald urged adoption of an amendment that narrows but restricts certain exterior uses and gives rulemaking authority to the Department of Agriculture.
The House Environment and Agriculture Committee heard hours of testimony on HB 14 31, a bill sponsored by Representative John T. McDonald that would restrict many nonagricultural uses of neonicotinoid insecticides while preserving targeted uses and giving the Department of Agriculture authority to reclassify products by rule.
Representative McDonald framed the bill as a collaborative, evidence-based response to declines in insects and documented environmental contamination. “Neonicotinoids are systemic insecticides designed to permeate the entire plant,” McDonald said in his opening remarks, arguing that widespread use has produced measurable exposures in New Hampshire residents and ecosystems. He described an amendment that narrows the bill’s scope, clarifies exemptions for structural and agriculture uses, and requires advance public notification for permitted exterior applications near schools, managed pollinator habitat or municipal property.
Department of Agriculture officials told the committee that the Pesticide Control Board already has rulemaking authority and that most neonics are currently classified as general-use products; reclassifying them as restricted use would move many exterior applications behind licensed applicators. David Russo of the department’s pesticide control division described the agency as neutral on the bill’s intent while emphasizing the board’s existing regulatory pathway.
Forest-management staff and private foresters cautioned that systemic, injected or base-applied products remain an important tool against invasive forest pests such as hemlock woolly adelgid and emerald ash borer. Kyle Lombard, a forest entomologist with the Division of Forests and Lands, said that in many forestry uses neonics are the least toxic option available and warned that banning general access could push landowners toward older, more toxic chemicals.
Scientists, conservation groups and farmers who spoke in favor of restrictions emphasized evidence linking neonics to declines in pollinators and aquatic invertebrates and to contamination of soils and waterways. New Hampshire Audubon, the Xerces Society and statewide lake groups urged the committee to adopt the amendment’s targeted limits and to preserve narrowly defined exceptions for urgent invasive-pest control. Several speakers cited regional precedents — Quebec, New York and Vermont — and a large Cornell review finding limited agronomic benefits from prophylactic seed treatments.
Committee members pressed sponsors and agency witnesses on enforcement, penalties and whether rulemaking by the pesticide board could achieve similar protections without a statutory change. The Department of Agriculture noted existing enforcement tools (civil fines up to $1,000 and referral to the attorney general’s office for criminal matters) but also said that the board traditionally relies on federal actions and that legislative direction would help create long-term clarity.
The hearing closed after extensive public comment, with the committee recording hundreds of online supporters and only a handful of opposers on the digital portal. The committee scheduled a work session to consider the amendment and next steps.
The committee is expected to review the sponsor’s amendment and agency guidance at that work session; no vote on the bill occurred during the hearing.
