Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pesticide Container Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates ban on open burning of pesticide containers and recycling measures; paraquat ban discussed but not moved
Summary
Chair Hansen presented House File 25 76 to prohibit open burning of pesticide containers, reinforce user responsibility for rinsed containers and expand recycling/collection programs; Department of Agriculture staff described existing collection programs and complaint-driven enforcement. A paraquat ban amendment was mentioned but not offered; the bill was laid over.
ST. PAUL
Chair Hansen presented House File 25 76, a bill focused on pesticide container management and prohibiting open burning of pesticide containers. Hansen recounted his role in past container-rinsing and recycling initiatives and said modern packaging has changed, but open burning remains unsafe because burning does not reliably destroy toxic residues.
"If you burn plastic in open burning, whether it has residue or not, you never get to the temperature high enough to destroy the toxins," Chair Hansen said, recounting prior recycling pilot projects that shredded containers on site and repurposed the material.
The bill clarifies that once a container has been properly rinsed it is considered solid waste and places responsibility for safe disposal on the end user. Department of Agriculture representatives explained that pesticide labels are EPA-approved and generally direct users to follow state and local regulations; label language is not uniform across products. Joshua Stamper, division director for pesticide and fertilizer management at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, said many agricultural chemical dealers accept waste pesticide containers and that collection programs have existed for decades.
Department witnesses said enforcement would be complaint-driven and use existing administrative penalties under the pesticide-control statutes (warnings, notices of violation, escalating administrative actions). Committee members asked how residue is removed in recycling processes; Chair Hansen and witnesses described triple-rinsing practices and on-site shredding used historically to prepare containers for recycling.
Members also discussed paraquat. Chair Hansen said he had drafted an amendment to ban paraquat but declined to move it; several members requested copies of Senate language on paraquat to inform further discussion. Department staff noted there is a fiscal note associated with some Senate paraquat language and that the agency and legislature are negotiating dates for stop-sale and stop-use to avoid penalizing users who already purchased products.
Outcome: Chair Hansen renewed his motion to lay House File 25 76 over; the bill was laid over. No vote on a paraquat ban occurred.
What's next: Committee members asked for the Senate's paraquat language and said they would continue negotiations ahead of the next committee meeting.
