Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pesticide Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rep. McDonald urges one‑year study of neonicotinoid seed treatments; farmers and scientists spar on scope
Summary
Representative John T. McDonald introduced HB1086 to create a legislative study committee on neonicotinoid seed treatments. Supporters cited regional studies showing little yield benefit and ecological harms; agricultural groups warned the bill presumes a ban and urged strong UNH involvement and local data.
Representative John T. McDonald introduced House Bill 1086 to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee as a one‑year legislative study of neonicotinoid seed treatments and their effects on New Hampshire agriculture and ecosystems.
McDonald said the bill would “review and consolidate existing science, document what is already happening in New Hampshire, and ensure appropriate seed options are available,” noting that Quebec, New York and Vermont have taken regulatory steps on neonics. He asked the committee to support creating a targeted, time‑bound committee that would rely on peer‑reviewed research and state data rather than multi‑year field trials.
Why it matters: Witnesses said the statewide stakes include pollinator declines, aquatic‑invertebrate losses that affect fisheries and recreational fishing, and possible human exposure through food and water. Mary Rose Scofava of the Conservation Law Foundation told the committee that studies from Cornell, Quebec and Ontario find little economic benefit from neonic‑treated corn and soybean seed and urged New Hampshire to learn from neighboring jurisdictions.
Public testimony presented two recurring lines of evidence. Scientists and conservation groups emphasized ecological harms: Rosemary Malfy of the Xeri Society said neonics are highly water‑soluble, accumulate in soils, and have been detected at levels that exceed aquatic life benchmarks in nearby states; she cited declines in aquatic insects and noted cascading impacts on fish and birds. Several witnesses described sizable declines in local pollinator and insect populations.
Farmers and agricultural representatives urged caution and local studies. Rob Johnson, policy director for the New Hampshire Farm Bureau, opposed the bill as written, saying it "predetermines a ban" by focusing on jurisdictions that restricted neonics while not reviewing places that rejected bans. Multiple growers, including Sarah Rocklage and Chuck South, told the committee that New Hampshire’s short season, field‑by‑field pest pressures and seed variety availability require locally tailored study methods and UNH involvement to measure real‑world impacts.
Committee exchange and next steps: Senators pressed for assurances that any study would include New Hampshire agronomic conditions and growers. McDonald said he had engaged the pesticide control board and a subcommittee and argued the study would be legislative, not a replacement for the board’s technical role. Members asked sponsors and witnesses to submit written testimony and to clarify whether the study would include manufacturers and seed availability questions.
The hearing closed without a committee vote; members will review submitted materials. The sponsor asked that the study committee be empowered to finish in one year and to include UNH and the pesticide control board as participants or consultees.
