Citizen Portal
Sign In

Heated testimony as Maryland panel weighs limits on neonicotinoid seed coatings and ornamentals

House Environment and Transportation Committee · February 4, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

HB 91 would restrict low‑benefit, high‑risk uses of neonicotinoids — including treated commodity seeds and lawn/ornamental applications — drawing strong public‑health and conservation support and vigorous opposition from farmers and agribusiness over seed supply and crop‑protection needs.

Delegate Anne Healy presented HB 91 to extend Maryland’s 2016 pollinator protections by targeting certain neonicotinoid ("neonic") uses she and expert witnesses described as low‑benefit and high‑risk for pollinators, aquatic life and potentially human health. "House Bill 91 is a direct continuation of that work grounded in updated science and practical experience," an intern testifying for the sponsor summarized.

Medical witnesses and environmental groups described developmental and ecological risks associated with chronic neonic exposure. Dr. Michael Litniewski (Maryland chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics) testified that neonics and their metabolites have been detected in pregnant women and in baby food and that prenatal exposure has been associated in some studies with developmental harms.

Conservation and farming witnesses diverged sharply. Supporters cited University of Maryland research showing that neonic‑treated corn, soybean and wheat seeds did not increase yields across Maryland field trials and pointed to international and regional precedents (Quebec, New York, Vermont). Opponents — farm‑group witnesses, seed sellers and turfgrass producers — said that neonic seed treatments are a precise, federally‑reviewed tool that protect young seedlings and enable no‑till and other conservation practices; they cautioned about supply problems for untreated seed and higher costs for alternatives.

Sponsor and proponents said the bill includes waivers for genuine agronomic emergencies and a process for interagency consultation to ensure seed availability and avoid undue harm to producers; opponents asked the committee for further study and a negative report. The committee heard a broad panel and concluded the hearing with multiple follow‑ups requested on supply questions and fiscal impacts.