[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PAST BREAKTHROUGHS AND FUTURE INNOVATIONS IN CROP PRODUCTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 22, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-11
[GRAPHIC(s) NOT AVAILANLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-689 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota, Ranking
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice Minority Member
Chairman DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas JIM COSTA, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
DOUG LaMALFA, California ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio, Vice
DON BACON, Nebraska Ranking Minority Member
MIKE BOST, Illinois SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
TRACEY MANN, Kansas JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
BARRY MOORE, Alabama GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
KAT CAMMACK, Florida JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee ADAM GRAY, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas KRISTEN McDONALD RIVET, Michigan
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas SHOMARI FIGURES, Alabama
ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa EUGENE SIMON VINDMAN, Virginia
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin JOSH RILEY, New York
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington JOHN W. MANNION, New York
TONY WIED, Wisconsin APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland
ROBERT P. BRESNAHAN, Jr., CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
Pennsylvania SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina
DAVID J. TAYLOR, Ohio
______
Parish Braden, Staff Director
Brian Sowyrda, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Adams, Hon. Alma S., a Representative in Congress from North
Carolina:
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Submitted Federal Register Rule.............................. 75
Craig, Hon. Angie, a Representative in Congress from Minnesota,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Witnesses
Cameron, Don J., Vice President and General Manager, Terranova
Ranch, Inc., Helm, CA.......................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Abbott, Terry, Chairman, Council of Producers and Distributors of
Agrotechnology; Senior Product Portfolio Manager, Adjuvants
Unlimited, Lakewood, CO........................................ 12
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Submitted questions.......................................... 76
Wyant, Ph.D., Karl, Director of Agronomy, Nutrien, Tempe, AZ..... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Submitted question........................................... 76
Witherbee, Bryan J., President and Chief Executive Officer,
Agragene, Inc., St. Louis, MO.................................. 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
PAST BREAKTHROUGHS AND FUTURE INNOVATIONS IN CROP PRODUCTION
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2025
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:20 a.m., in Room
1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Thompson,
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Thompson, Lucas, Austin
Scott of Georgia, Crawford, DesJarlais, LaMalfa, Rouzer, Kelly,
Bacon, Bost, Johnson, Baird, Mann, Feenstra, Miller, Moore,
Cammack, Finstad, Rose, Jackson of Texas, Nunn, Newhouse, Wied,
Bresnahan, Messmer, Harris, Taylor, Craig, David Scott of
Georgia, Costa, McGovern, Adams, Hayes, Brown, Davids of
Kansas, Salinas, Davis of North Carolina, Tokuda, Budzinski,
Sorensen, Vasquez, Jackson of Illinois, Thanedar, Gray,
McDonald Rivet, Figures, Vindman, Riley, Mannion, McClain
Delaney, and Carbajal.
Staff present: Laurel Lee Chatham, Wick Dudley, Luke
Franklin, Josie Montoney, Suzie Cavalier, Daniel Feingold,
Michael Stein, and Jackson Blodgett.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
Welcome. Thank you for joining today's hearing entitled,
Past Breakthroughs and Future Innovations in Crop Production.
After brief opening remarks, Members will receive testimony
from our witnesses today, and then the hearing will be open to
questions.
So once again, good morning, everyone, and welcome to
today's hearing. I want to begin by thanking Ranking Member
Craig for her partnership in hosting this bipartisan hearing,
and I appreciate the participation of our colleagues on both
sides of the aisle who are here to examine a topic that lies at
the very heart of American crop production, innovation.
I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to our panel
of witnesses. You each bring valuable expertise and real-world
perspective to this conversation, and we are grateful that you
have taken time out of your schedules to be with us today. I
look forward to hearing your insights on how innovation is
shaping the future of agriculture and what we as policymakers
can do to support that momentum.
For generations our farmers have not only fed this country,
they have helped to feed the world, and they have done so by
continuously adapting and embracing new tools, technologies,
and practices. The success of U.S. agriculture has been built
through ingenuity, hard work, and the strategic application of
science and technology. From seed to soil to harvest, that
innovation has been the engine that drives productivity,
efficiency, and stewardship across the entire agriculture value
chain. Simply put, American agriculture has become the envy of
the world because we have embraced science, technology, and a
commitment to progress.
Throughout history, producers have benefited from a steady
stream of scientific breakthroughs that have changed the face
of farming. The introduction of hybrid corn in the early 20th
century marked a turning point in the yield improvement and
reliability. The expansion of modern fertilizers to meet key
crop needs drove an additional era of unprecedented
productivity. The rollout of biotechnology traits like insect-
resistant Bt cotton and glyphosate-tolerant soybeans gave
farmers important tools to combat pest and weed pressures.
These traits, alongside proven crop protection tools, not only
protect crops from devastating losses but also help producers
more effectively steward their land by enabling soil
conservation practices like no-till.
Alongside these historic breakthroughs, we have also seen
remarkable progress on the next generation of tools to work
hand-in-hand with these proven technologies. Innovations in the
crop protection space have given producers targeted solutions
that improve efficacy while reducing off-target impacts.
Biological products such as biostimulants are unlocking new
ways to strengthen plant health and productivity, and gene-
editing tools are already leading to the development of crops
that are more resilient to drought, disease, and environmental
stress with traits tailored to farmers' and consumers' needs.
Today, thanks to decades of investment in agriculture
innovation and the tireless efforts of our producers, the
United States is home to the most abundant, affordable, and
safest food supply in the world. We should be proud of that
legacy. We should also recognize that sustaining it will
require us to remain forward-looking and focus on reducing the
barriers that stand in the way of continued innovation.
For these promising new tools to reach the farmgate and
ultimately benefit consumers, rural economies, and the
environment, we must have a regulatory environment that is
grounded in science, transparent in its decision-making, and
predictable in its timeliness and outcomes. When innovators
face confusion about which agency has jurisdiction, or when
reviews take years with no clear rationale, or when litigation
is used as a tool to block technologies that have already been
proven safe, we lose more than just time. We lose investment
and competitiveness, and we risk falling behind global
competitors who are moving fast to deploy the tools of
tomorrow.
As a Committee, we have a responsibility to ensure that our
regulatory framework is built for the 21st century and
effectively protect human health and the environment without
stifling innovation. That means modernizing and streamlining
roles where appropriate, clarifying approval pathways for new
technologies, and making sure that the rules of the road are
clear and based on measurable risk, not hypotheticals.
Today's hearing is about honoring the legacy of past
breakthroughs while creating the conditions for future success.
We will hear about the incredible potential for emerging
technologies, the challenges facing innovators, the real-world
impacts on producers, and the opportunities for Congress to
create smarter, science-based policy that keeps American
agriculture on the cutting edge.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing. I want to begin by
thanking Ranking Member Craig for her partnership in hosting this
bipartisan hearing, and I appreciate the participation of our
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are here to examine a topic
that lies at the very heart of American crop production--innovation.
I'd also like to extend my sincere thanks to our panel of
witnesses. You each bring valuable expertise and real-world perspective
to this conversation, and we're grateful you've taken time out of your
schedules to be with us today. I look forward to hearing your insights
on how innovation is shaping the future of agriculture--and what we, as
policymakers, can do to support that momentum.
For generations, our farmers have not only fed this country--
they've helped to feed the world. And they have done so by continuously
adapting and embracing new tools, technologies, and practices. The
success of U.S. agriculture has been built through ingenuity, hard
work, and the strategic application of science and technology.
From seed to soil to harvest, that innovation has been the engine
that drives productivity, efficiency, and stewardship across the entire
ag value chain.
Simply put, American agriculture has become the envy of the world
because we have embraced science, technology, and a commitment to
progress.
Throughout history, producers have benefited from a steady stream
of scientific breakthroughs that have changed the face of farming. The
introduction of hybrid corn in the early 20th century marked a turning
point in yield improvement and reliability. The expansion of modern
fertilizers to meet key crop needs drove an additional era of
unprecedented productivity. The rollout of biotechnology traits--like
insect-resistant Bt cotton and glyphosate-tolerant soybeans--gave
farmers important tools to combat pest and weed pressures. These traits
alongside proven crop protection tools not only protect crops from
devastating losses but also helped producers more effectively steward
their land by enabling soil conservation practices like no-till.
Alongside these historic breakthroughs, we've also seen remarkable
progress on the next generation of tools to work hand-in-hand with
these proven technologies. Innovations in the crop protection space
have given producers targeted solutions that improve efficacy while
reducing off-target impacts. Biological products, such as
biostimulants, are unlocking new ways to strengthen plant health and
productivity. And gene editing tools are already leading to the
development of crops that are more resilient to drought, disease, and
environmental stress, with traits tailored to farmer and consumer
needs.
Today, thanks to decades of investment in agricultural innovation
and the tireless efforts of our producers, the United States is home to
the most abundant, affordable, and safest food supply in the world. We
should be proud of that legacy. But we should also recognize that
sustaining it will require us to remain forward-looking and focused on
reducing the barriers that stand in the way of continued innovation.
For these promising new tools to reach the farmgate and ultimately
benefit consumers, rural economies, and the environment, we must have a
regulatory environment that is grounded in science, transparent in its
decision-making, and predictable in its timelines and outcomes.
When innovators face confusion about which agency has jurisdiction,
or when reviews take years with no clear rationale, or when litigation
is used as a tool to block technologies that have already been proven
safe, we lose more than just time. We lose investment and
competitiveness. And we risk falling behind global competitors who are
moving faster to deploy the tools of tomorrow.
As a Committee, we have a responsibility to ensure that our
regulatory frameworks are built for the 21st century, and effectively
protect human health and the environment without stifling innovation.
That means modernizing and streamlining roles where appropriate;
clarifying approval pathways for new technologies; and making sure that
the rules of the road are clear and based on measurable risk, not
hypotheticals.
Today's hearing is about honoring the legacy of past breakthroughs
while creating the conditions for future success. We'll hear about the
incredible potential of emerging technologies, the challenges facing
innovators, the real-world impacts on producers, and the opportunities
for Congress to create smarter, science-based policy that keeps
American agriculture on the cutting edge.
The Chairman. With that, I would now like to welcome the
distinguished Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Minnesota,
Ms. Craig, for any opening remarks that she would like to give.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANGIE CRAIG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
to our witnesses for being here today.
American farms are among the most productive on Earth,
enabling our farmers to feed the country and the world. They
take this responsibility seriously, just as seriously as their
commitment to farms using methods that keep their neighbors,
consumers, and the environment safe. Today, I am excited that
we get to focus on and learn about how cutting-edge
biotechnology, tried-and-true crop production techniques, and
sound policy equip our farmers with the tools they need to
continue feeding America's families.
To maintain a high-quality food production system, we need
a regulatory framework that is transparent and based on sound
science. The moment we begin to stray from these principles is
the moment that trust in our food system begins to deteriorate.
That is why I am concerned with so many of the comments and
actions coming out of the current Administration that seem
designed to undermine people's confidence in our regulatory
system, attack innovation taking place on our farms, and make
it harder for family farmers to do their jobs.
Take, for example, the MAHA Commission report, which was
riddled with errors and cited nonexistent studies. Errors and
misinformation like these have consequences. It undermines
Americans' trust in the food we eat and attacks farmers for the
work that they do. Secretary Kennedy's disregard for science
and perversion of facts and data are dangerous, erodes
confidence in our public health and regulatory systems, and
dissuades talented scientists from joining the civil service.
The Environmental Protection Agency has also begun to move
backward with the haphazard firing of technical staff and
scientists responsible for properly assessing new chemicals and
technologies and their impact on our people, food, and the
environment. This work requires talented toxicologists,
chemists, and other scientists who collaborate with industry
and advocacy groups to protect the environment while ensuring
farmers have access to the tools they need.
This uncertainty isn't just bad for the agency and American
citizens that rely on the government to protect their health
and the environment. It is bad for business. Innovative
products that could have come to market will be stalled in the
pipeline as review times get even worse.
American scientists and farmers have unlocked the building
blocks of many plants, discovering how to make crops more
resilient to drought, increase production yields, and reduce
resource consumption. Defunding fundamental science research
and firing the civil servants and scientists who work with
private companies and farmers to bring technological
advancements and new crop tools to market will put us further
behind as countries like Brazil, India, and China increase the
size and scope of their research programs.
We all want science-based regulatory decisions and policy,
which is why I urge my colleagues to oppose any further
defunding and termination of our research programs and
scientists and rather look for opportunities to invest in these
efforts and people, which we all agree are critical to the
future of farm country.
We have before us an impressive panel of witnesses, all of
whom have extensive experience in how to effectively use crop
protection tools and use groundbreaking technology to bring new
and innovative products to market. As we start to move toward
reauthorization of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act,
testimony like yours can help to inform us of what improvements
and changes might be made. So thank you so much for being here
again to our witnesses.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Craig follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress
from Minnesota
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
American farms are among the most productive on Earth, enabling our
farmers to feed our country and the world.
They take this responsibility seriously--just as seriously as their
commitments to farm using methods that keep their neighbors, consumers
and the environment safe.
Today, I am excited that we get to focus on and learn about how
cutting-edge biotechnology, tried-and-true crop production techniques
and sound policy equip our farmers with the tools they need to continue
feeding America's families.
To maintain a high-quality food production system, we need a
regulatory framework that is transparent and based on sound science.
The moment we begin to stray from these principles is the moment that
trust in our food system begins to deteriorate.
That is why I am concerned with so many of the comments and actions
coming out of the current Administration that seem designed to
undermine people's confidence in our regulatory system, attack
innovation taking place on our farms and make it harder for family
farmers to do their jobs.
Take, for example, the MAHA Commission Report, which was riddled
with errors and cited non-existent ``studies.'' Errors and
misinformation like these have consequences. It undermines Americans'
trust in the food we eat and attacks farmers for the work they do.
Secretary Kennedy's disregard for science and perversion of facts
and data is dangerous, erodes confidence in our public health and
regulatory systems, and dissuades talented scientists from joining the
civil service.
The Environmental Protection Agency has also begun to move backward
with the haphazard firing of technical staff and scientists responsible
for properly assessing new chemicals and technologies and their impact
on our people, food and the environment. This work requires talented
toxicologists, chemists and other scientists who collaborate with
industry and advocacy groups to protect the environment while ensuring
farmers have access to the tools they need.
This uncertainty isn't just bad for the Agency and American
citizens that rely on the government to protect their health and the
environment, it's bad for business. Innovative products that could have
come to market will be stalled in the pipeline as review times get even
worse.
American scientists and farmers have unlocked the building blocks
of many plants, discovering how to make crops more resilient to
drought, increase production yields and reduce resource consumption.
Defunding fundamental science research and firing the civil
servants and scientists who work with private companies and farmers to
bring technological advancements and new crop tools to market will put
us further behind as countries like Brazil, India and China increase
the size and scope of their research programs.
We all want science-based regulatory decisions and policy, which is
why I urge my colleagues to oppose any further defunding and
termination of our research programs and scientists and rather look for
opportunities to invest in these efforts and people which we all agree
are critical to the future of farm country.
We have before us an impressive panel of witnesses, all of whom
have extensive experience in how to effectively use crop protection
tools and use groundbreaking technology to bring new and innovative
products to market. As we start to move towards the reauthorization of
the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA), testimony like yours
can help to inform us of what improvements and changes might be made.
Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the Ranking Member.
The chair would request other Members submit their opening
statements for the record so the witnesses may begin their
testimony and to assure that there is ample time for questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Adams follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When I reflect on breakthroughs and future innovations in crop
production, I think about how much progress we have already made--and
how much further we can still go.
Advances in technology, science, and farming practices have
revolutionized agriculture in ways that were unimaginable just a few
decades ago.
From precision farming and biotechnology to improved irrigation and
sustainable soil management, these innovations have increased crop
yields, reduced environmental impact, and helped feed a growing
population.
Despite these remarkable achievements, our work is far from over.
As a Senior Member of the House Agriculture Committee, I take this
work very seriously, as the decisions we make in this Committee
ultimately have the power to propel us ahead or set us back.
And, as a Member of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and
Biotechnology, I am responsible for overseeing policies related to pest
and disease management, including pesticides.
That is why I was deeply concerned when, in May, the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) published a final rule removing the
requirement for applicators to report their use of Restricted Use
Pesticides (RUP).
This rule was issued without a public comment period or notice, and
it means that effective July 11, 2025, farmers and other private
applicators are no longer legally obligated to record critical
information such as the pesticide used, application date, amount,
location, and the crop treated.
This is troubling because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
classifies certain pesticides as ``restricted use'' when they pose
serious health and environmental risks if not handled with strict
precautions.
The EPA's list of RUPs spans 45 pages and includes chemicals like
paraquat, atrazine, and chlorpyrifos--substances linked to severe
issues such as Parkinson's disease, birth defects, and other chronic
conditions.
In the USDA's final rule notice, agency officials dismissed these
regulations as ``not a priority'' and states that ``to the extent there
is any uncertainty about the costs and benefits, it is the policy of
the USDA to err on the side of deregulation.'' But the truth is,
regulations protecting human health and the environment should be
strengthened--not eliminated.
Growing and harvesting food should be a safe and healthy experience
for everyone involved--from farm to plate. Farmworkers--who provide the
food we eat every day--deserve protection that keep them, their
families, and their communities safe from hazardous pesticide exposure.
That is why I have supported legislation, such as the Ban Atrazine
Toxicants Act led by my colleague Mr. McGovern, which seeks to prohibit
the use, production, sale, importation, and exportation of any
pesticide products containing atrazine.
Atrazine is particularly harmful--it is derived from oil and gas,
is an endocrine disrupter, and has been linked to breast cancer,
prostate cancer, congenital disabilities, and reproductive harm. It
contaminates drinking water sources for more than 40 million Americans,
and it is highly toxic to wildlife.
This country deserves a food system that not only feeds everyone
but also respects the health of the people and the planet.
Farmers and farmworkers must be able to trust that the tools they
use do not threaten their health, their communities, or the ecosystems
that sustain their livelihoods.
And families walking up and down the aisles of grocery stores
should be able to trust that the products on the shelves are safe to
consume.
Atrazine, among other chemicals, has been a proven danger, and it
is long past time for the United States to join many other countries in
ending its use and adopting safer alternatives.
Fortunately, safer alternatives to harmful pesticides exist--
options that offer better health outcomes, stronger environmental
protections, and improved economic and sustainability benefits.
We owe it to our farmers, farmworkers, and future generations to
prioritize those alternatives and build a food system that truly works,
and is healthy, for all.
I yield back.
The Chairman. I will now yield to the gentleman from
California, Mr. Costa, to introduce our first witness.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Members, Members of the Committee.
This hearing today, Past Breakthroughs and Future
Innovations in Crop Production, is critical to the future of
American agriculture. And as many of you have heard me say
regularly, food is a national security issue. And so therefore,
having this panel of witnesses here before us this morning is
appropriate and fitting.
The first witness that will testify is a person who is a
longtime friend, constituent, and a person I have worked with
in agriculture for many, many years, and actually a neighbor
farmer. I am speaking of Mr. Don Cameron from my home county in
Fresno, California. The County of Fresno, of course, is where
Don farms. He is Vice President and General Manager of
Terranova Ranch, a 6,000 acre farm near in the area where I
farm, and also operator of Prado Farms.
He holds a degree from California State University at
Fresno, my alma mater, go Dogs. And his ranch produces,
amazingly, Members of this Committee, that I have been to
numerous times, 25 different crops, including conventional and
organic and biotech field crops such as tomatoes, peppers,
onions, corn, various seed crops, as well as perennial crops
like walnuts, wine grapes, almonds, and pistachios and olives.
Don does just about everything. And some of you, the Chairman
and past Agriculture Secretaries, have been to his farm in
which he has held forums and meetings to better facilitate
cooperation.
Food on America's dinner table is a national security
issue. Don has led the development in efforts to demonstrate
that. He won the 2017 Governor's Environmental Leadership Award
and the Agriculturalist of the Year by the Fresno Chamber of
Commerce. He is innovative in technology and water recharge,
and he also serves on several agricultural boards. He has been
the chair of the California State Board of Food and Agriculture
since 2018.
He is a full package, and we look forward to hearing his
testimony on these important issues because change is constant
and change is hard, and Don Cameron represents a good model on
how you adapt and address the change. We will look forward to
hearing this witness' testimony. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Our next witness is Mr. Terry Abbott, Chairman of the
Council of Producers and Distributors of Agrotechnology.
Our third witness today is Dr. Karl Wyant, the Director of
Agronomy at Nutrien.
Our fourth and final witness is Mr. Bryan Witherbee, the
Chief Executive Officer at Agragene Incorporated.
Thank you all for joining us today. We will now proceed to
your testimony. You will each have 5 minutes. The timer in
front of you will count down to zero, at which point your time
has expired.
Mr. Cameron, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF DON J. CAMERON, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL
MANAGER, TERRANOVA RANCH, INC., HELM, CA
Mr. Cameron. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, good to see you
again, about a year and a half since you visited our farm. And
Ranking Member Craig and Members of the Committee, it is an
honor to be invited here today to help inform on the important
decisions that you have been elected to make on behalf of U.S.
agriculture and for food security for this nation.
You heard my name is Don Cameron, Vice President, General
Manager at Terranova Ranch in Helm, which is in the San Joaquin
Valley of California. You heard we farm quite a few different
crops. Jim missed a few, but I am not going to bring those up,
but we do farm a wide variety of different specialty crops on
the farm.
As I said, our capacities as a farmer have included being
President of the California State Board of Food and
Agriculture, which advises the California Secretary of Ag and
the Governor on issues in agriculture for our state. And I am
also a Western Growers board member.
Farmers are in the business of providing healthy,
nutritious food. The ever-increasing costs of inputs, seed,
water, energy, and labor make for thin margins without room for
error. To ensure my livelihood and that food arrives at your
grocery store, restaurants, and schools, I must protect my
crops from pests and disease. I can assure you, with all the
costs of doing business and its associated regulatory burdens,
farmers don't have slush funds to waste money on crop inputs
that are not absolutely necessary.
As a farmer, I am aware of consumer apprehension about the
use of pesticides and, in turn, retail grocery stores and
restaurants that have also been sensitized to this issue. As a
father and grandfather, I am sympathetic to the consumer
concerns when hearing about pesticides in the media. Sometimes
we look past the fact that pesticides are regulated extensively
by EPA with support from USDA, FDA, and state agencies to
ensure that they are safe for human health and for the
environment under the intended use using scientific data. The
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA
(Pub. L. 80-104), mandates rigorous risk assessments to
determine any necessary mitigation measures that must be taken
before a product can be registered and safely applied.
Fruit and vegetable growers must meet a high standard for
quality demanded by consumers. In today's culture, where
shoppers often bypass slightly bruised produce in favor of
perfect-looking fruits and vegetables, the pressure on farmers
to deliver flawless crops is immense. To support consumer
expectations and public health goals centered around nutritious
diets, a full range of innovative crop protection tools,
including pesticides, is essential to ensure the reliable
production of appealing, high-quality fresh produce.
Growers have been investing in crop innovations for a long
time and are making great strides to reduce reliance on
traditional pesticides, increase crop resilience, and diversify
with innovative technologies. The agriculture industry needs
your backing in these efforts, including research and support
for novel technologies.
The Trump Administration recently released the Make America
Healthy Again, MAHA report, which spotlights the importance of
access to a healthy diet and can spur collaborations toward
innovative tools to address concerns while cultivating a viable
future for domestically produced fruits and vegetables
safeguarded from pests and diseases. I would like to highlight
a few recommendations. You will find more in my written
testimony that will accelerate innovation, including at the
USDA.
The IR-4 Project is a key resource for the specialty crop
industry, and we support increased funding to enable continued
work with novel crop protection technologies for specialty
crops, including biological crops or products.
I also encourage an increase in research grants specific to
the next generation of crop protection tools specifically
targeted at pests that are our greatest threat to our food
supply.
While the scope of the Committee's jurisdiction over EPA is
limited, I think we can agree that EPA's impact on agriculture
cannot be overlooked. We appreciate the Committee's attention
to this issue. EPA staffing issues directly impact the ability
to move applications through the registration process in a
timely manner. There simply aren't enough EPA staff to keep up
with the workload, and staff being hired are not as familiar
with biologicals and are often grounded in conventional
products. Growers support increased staff who can focus on
biological registration.
As I close, it is my hope that through conversations like
this and through your leadership, we can pave the way for
America to lead these innovations and, in doing so continue to
produce healthy food long into the future.
Thank you again for the opportunity. I look forward to the
questions and to this important discussion today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cameron follows:]
Prepared Statement of Don J. Cameron, Vice President and General
Manager, Terranova Ranch, Inc., Helm, CA
Introduction
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and Members of the
Committee, it is an honor to be invited here today to help inform the
important decisions you have been elected to make on behalf of U.S.
agriculture for the food security of this nation.
My name is Don Cameron. I am Vice President and General Manager of
Terranova Ranch in Helm, in the Central Valley of California. We farm
over 25 different crops with 6,000 acres of our own production and
1,500 custom farmed for other clients. We grow a mix of conventional
and organic crops including processing tomatoes, peppers, onions, corn,
walnuts, wine grapes, almonds and pistachios. I have served in various
agricultural leadership capacities throughout my career as a farmer
including President of the California State Board of Food and
Agriculture which advises the California Secretary of Agriculture and
the Governor on agricultural issues and am also a board member of
Western Growers Association.
State of Play
Today, we are here to talk about innovations in crop production
including crop protection tools, so I'd like to spend just a moment
talking about the current state of play.
Farmers are in the business of providing healthy, nutritious food.
The ever-increasing cost of inputs; seed, water, energy and labor make
for thin margins without room for error. To ensure my livelihood and
that food arrives at your grocery store, restaurants, and schools, I
must protect my crops from pests and disease. I can assure you, with
all the costs of doing business and its associated regulatory burdens,
farmers don't have slush funds to waste on crop inputs that are not
necessary. We look for ways to minimize what we use, which is how we
have always handled the issue of crop protection. As a farmer, I'm
aware of consumer apprehension about the use of pesticides and in turn
retail grocery stores and restaurants who have been sensitized to the
issue. As a father and grandfather, I am sympathetic to consumer
concerns when hearing about pesticides in the media. I would like to
note that the most extreme version of stories often gets the most
attention, so I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue and
how we can best support farmers and provide consumers with access to
fresh, affordable, and safe food.
Sometimes we look past the fact that pesticides are regulated by
the EPA with support from USDA, FDA, and state agencies to ensure that
they are safe for human health and the environment under their intended
use using scientific data. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) mandates rigorous risk assessments to determine
any associated risks and the necessary mitigation measures that must be
taken before a product can be registered and applied. EPA also
establishes residue limits or tolerances and tests for them regularly
to ensure the safety of the food supply and has a ``reasonable
certainty'' of no resulting harm from any pesticide residue.
Pesticides play a vital role in our food system, helping farmers
protect their crops from destructive pests that threaten both yield and
quality. An economics study by the California Department of Food and
Agriculture's Office of Pesticide Consultation and Analysis (CDFA OPCA)
highlighted the real-world consequences of limited pest control
options, revealing that in 2023 California cotton farmers lost $40.9
million due to an outbreak of Lygus bugs on Pima cotton--a loss
directly linked to the lack of any effective tools to manage just one
pest.
This example underscores the broader challenge faced by fruit and
vegetable growers who must meet a high standard of quality demanded by
consumers. In today's culture, where shoppers often bypass slightly
blemished produce in favor of perfect-looking fruits and vegetables,
the pressure on farmers to deliver flawless crops is immense. To
support both consumer expectations and public health goals centered
around nutritious diets, a full range of innovative crop protection
tools, including pesticides, is essential to ensure the reliable
production of appealing, high-quality fresh produce.
Grower Innovation
Growers have been investing in crop innovations for a long time and
are making great strides to reduce reliance on traditional pesticides,
increase crop resilience, and diversify with innovative technologies.
Farmers are utilizing integrated pest management (IPM) methods to
manage pests while minimizing risks to people, property, and the
environment, introducing predatory insects, precision agriculture,
leveraging crop breeding and genetics to develop plants resistant to
pest and disease pressures, laser weeding, autonomous equipment and
more. As you know, farmers are pragmatic and continually adapt and
improve to survive, but much more can be done to support the industry
in these efforts including research and support for novel technologies.
It should come as no surprise that growers must ascertain very
quickly which crop protection tools work and which don't. With razor-
thin margins, we can be reluctant to make a switch from something that
we know works, to a new product or technology that is unproven.
Efficacy concerns, costs associated with retrofitting equipment or
unique handling requirements such as refrigeration, and the need for
increased applications are all things to be considered. Biologicals are
new technologies and growers are less familiar with them and will need
additional technical guidance and incentives to take the leap. Proving
something in a research lab is far different than in an open field, so
we need to get more biologicals in the hands of growers to test it
themselves and see what works best. We also see a strong need for
resources to help evaluate and trial these products for efficacy on
farm, getting the necessary data for broader grower buy-in.
The Trump Administration's recently released the Make America
Healthy Again (MAHA) report which in part seeks to address consumer
apprehension to potential exposure to some pesticides. We see this
spotlight on healthy food as an opportunity to spur collaborations
toward innovative tools to address concerns while cultivating a viable
future of domestically produced fruits and vegetables safeguarded from
pests and diseases. With the Committee's leadership and oversight on
the issue, innovations in crop production can help growers continue to
provide healthy, nutritious foods for Americans.
USDA Opportunities
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has the opportunity to lead the
acceleration of developing novel crop protection tools. Biological
products are one of the fastest growing segments of the pest control
market and America should be seen as a leader of research and
development for crop protection. This Committee recognizes the IR-4
Project as a key resource for the specialty crop industry and we
support increased funding to enable its continued work with novel crop
protection technologies for specialty crops, including biological
products. Relatedly, the IR-4 Project used to partner with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on a Biopesticide Demonstration
Grant Program to coordinate the trials and promotion of the use of
biopesticides; this program should be reinvigorated. I also encourage
an increase in research grants specific to next generation crop
protection tools specifically targeted at pests that are the greatest
threat to our food supply. USDA's Office of Pest Management Policy also
stands to be a leader in new technologies, and we encourage increased
funding for this vital team.
U.S. EPA Opportunities
While the scope of the Committee's jurisdiction over EPA is
limited, I think we can agree that EPA's impact on agriculture cannot
be overlooked, and we appreciate the Committee's attention to this
issue. Given the complicated balancing act of agricultural pesticide
use, I encourage EPA's increased engagement with biological registrants
to facilitate knowledge sharing in two ways: EPA educating smaller
innovative biological companies with an understanding of the
registration process, and EPA providing opportunities for innovators to
share the latest tools and techniques for their ongoing awareness--both
are necessary to shorten the lengthy timeline for innovative tools.
EPA staffing issues also impact the ability to move applications
through the registration process in a timely fashion. First, there
simply aren't enough EPA staff to keep up with the workload, a key
reason EPA has described as the hurdle to finalizing registrations.
Second, the staff being hired are not as familiar with biotechnology as
they are often grounded in conventional products. Growers appreciate
recent announcements from the EPA related to staffing priorities and we
support increasing staff who can focus on biological registrations.
The EPA has a unique opportunity to lead beyond its own Federal
agency. U.S. growers are impacted by multiple levels of pesticide
regulations and pest pressures, and we look to the EPA to engage both
domestically and globally. For those of us in California, where about
\1/2\ of the U.S. production of nutritious fruits and vegetables are
grown, an additional registration and reporting process is required by
California's Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). DPR has a shared
interest with the EPA in advancing biological crop protection
technology. The dual registration requirement processes, however, run
counter to a swift development of next generation products such as
biologicals and provide a concurrent registration process. I encourage
EPA to dialogue with DPR to collaborate on this shared goal and develop
an MOU to guide sustainable crop protection tools in the hands of
growers at a rapid pace.
Closing
As I close, it is my hope that through conversations like this and
through your leadership, we can pave the way for America to lead in
these innovations and by so doing, continue to produce healthy food
long into the future.
Thank you again for the opportunity, I look forward to your
questions and to this important discussion today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Cameron, for your testimony.
Mr. Abbott, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF TERRY ABBOTT, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF PRODUCERS AND
DISTRIBUTORS OF AGROTECHNOLOGY; SENIOR PRODUCT PORTFOLIO
MANAGER, ADJUVANTS
UNLIMITED, LAKEWOOD, CO
Mr. Abbott. Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member
Craig, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
My name is Terry Abbott. I serve as Chairman of the Council
of Producers and Distributors of Agrotechnology and as Senior
Product Portfolio Manager at Adjuvants Unlimited, based in
Tulsa, Oklahoma. CPDA represents the formulators, distributors,
manufacturers, and suppliers of adjuvants, inert ingredients,
and post-patent pesticide products, representing nearly 90
percent of the U.S. crop protection market. Our members drive
innovation across formulation, stewardship, and field
performance.
When we talk about innovation in agriculture, it starts
with access to tools. Farmers need affordable, reliable options
to manage pests, protect yields, and keep their operations
productive. That includes maintaining a competitive market for
post-patent crop protection products and ensuring a regulatory
system that delivers timely, science-based decisions.
Our industry also drives innovation beyond active
ingredient. Companies like mine are advancing adjuvant and
inert technologies that improve how products perform in the
field. These tools reduce drift, enhance coverage, and support
compliance with environmental requirements, including the
Endangered Species Act (Pub. L. 93-205). They are essential for
precision, stewardship, and modern production.
To keep these tools available, we need a regulatory system
that works. Right now, over $\1/2\ billion in CPDA member
products are stuck in the EPA's regulatory backlog. In turn,
CPDA strongly supports full funding for EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs, and we encourage continued improvements
under PRIA to strengthen transparency and predictability in the
registration process. A well-functioning OPP benefits farmers,
innovators, consumers, and the environment, ensuring access to
safe, effective, and trusted crop protection tools.
We appreciate the farm program improvements in the One Big
Beautiful Bill Act (Pub. L. 119-21), but we also support a Farm
Bill 2.0 that builds on this momentum and reflects the needs of
today's agriculture.
Last year's Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024
(H.R. 8467) includes provisions we view as important. We
support language directing NRCS to update conservation practice
standards so that programs recognize current technologies. We
also support expanding access to technical service providers to
ensure farmers have expert guidance when implementing
conservation plans.
We are encouraged by the proposed centers of excellence for
crop protection products and application technology. These
centers would support research and innovation in formulation
and delivery, helping ensure the United States remains a global
leader in crop protection, environmental stewardship, and ag
innovation.
Last, I want to emphasize the critical role crop protection
technologies play in maintaining a safe, affordable, and
abundant food supply. These tools undergo rigorous review and
are used responsibly by farmers every day. As the MAHA
Commission continues its work, we urge policymakers to
recognize the science, the safety record, and the value of
these technologies in supporting both production and public
confidence.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abbott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Terry Abbott, Chairman, Council of Producers and
Distributors of Agrotechnology; Senior Product Portfolio Manager,
Adjuvants Unlimited, Lakewood, CO
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and Members of the
Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the
Council of Producers and Distributors of Agrotechnology (CPDA). CPDA is
the premier advocate for the agrotechnology industry, representing
formulators, distributors, manufacturers, and suppliers of adjuvants,
inert ingredients, and post-patent pesticide products. Our members
comprise a nationwide network that accounts for nearly 90 percent of
the $15 billion U.S. crop protection market. For nearly 4 decades, CPDA
has worked to advance science-based regulatory policies that protect
the environment, foster innovation, and preserve growers' access to the
tools they need to farm productively and sustainably.
I also serve as Senior Product Portfolio Manager at Adjuvants
Unlimited, a company that develops and supplies advanced tank mix
adjuvant and inert technologies to improve pesticide performance,
application efficiency, and environmental stewardship in the field.
Innovation Begins with Access
Innovation in agriculture is ultimately measured by what reaches
the farm gate. Scientific discovery, new formulations, and improved
application technologies only deliver value when farmers can access
them. That includes not just brand-new active ingredients, but also
post-patent products, adjuvants, and inert ingredients that expand
choices and enhance stewardship.
Post-patent pesticides play a vital role in maintaining a
competitive marketplace. These are proven technologies with well-
understood profiles, and they provide growers with the ability to
select the products that best fit their crop, rotation, and
environmental conditions. Ensuring continued access to these products
is critical to supporting choice, flexibility, and cost-effective pest
management strategies.
At the same time, innovation is increasingly found beyond the
active ingredient. Adjuvants improve spray deposition, reduce drift,
enable tank mix compatibility, and help growers meet complex label and
environmental requirements. Inert ingredients enhance the performance
of a formulation by helping ensure the active ingredient reaches the
target site effectively, remains stable, and performs as intended under
real-world conditions. These are not optional components. They are
essential to making crop protection products function as intended.
Yet access to these tools is increasingly threatened by regulatory
delays and uncertainty. Many post-patent products and formulation
improvements are caught in the same backlog as new chemistries,
limiting grower access to trusted options and stalling innovation
across the board.
Regulatory Delays and the Backlog at EPA OPP
Today, more than $\1/2\ billion in CPDA member products are stuck
in regulatory review at the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP). These delays slow innovation, increase costs,
and reduce access to more sustainable solutions.
The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) was designed to
deliver timely and predictable reviews. In exchange for user fees,
industry receives target timelines for decisions. But today those
timelines are routinely missed. EPA's own data shows that the vast
majority of actions are overdue.
While EPA has taken steps under Administrator Lee Zeldin to improve
internal coordination and streamline certain review processes,
significant challenges remain. The registration backlog, though showing
signs of stabilization, still affects hundreds of pending actions.
Longstanding issues including limited staff capacity, outdated
information systems, and insufficient funding continue to delay access
to critical tools and undermine regulatory predictability.
Congress can and should address this. CPDA strongly supports full
funding for the Office of Pesticide Programs, including the $166
million annual minimum authorized under PRIA V. That level of funding
is not a wish list, it reflects the basic capacity EPA has said it
needs to meet its statutory and workload obligations. Without it, the
system breaks down. Farmers, innovators, and the environment all lose.
A well-funded OPP benefits everyone. It creates predictability for
companies investing in research and development. It allows EPA to hire
and retain the scientists and reviewers necessary to evaluate products
thoroughly and efficiently. And it ensures that U.S. farmers have
timely access to the crop protection tools they need to remain
competitive globally.
Elevating the Role of Adjuvants in Stewardship and Conservation
While much of the public debate focuses on active ingredients, some
of the most promising innovation today lies in how those products are
used. Adjuvants are among the most cost-effective tools for enhancing
stewardship. They reduce off-target movement, improve coverage,
increase tank mix stability, and help deliver lower use rates while
maintaining efficacy. They are especially valuable in achieving
compliance with drift mitigation requirements and buffer zones
established under new label language and emerging ESA strategies.
Yet Federal conservation programs and risk mitigation strategies
have not kept pace. Most NRCS conservation practice standards do not
properly incentivize the use of adjuvants, even when they clearly
contribute to risk reduction and environmental benefit.
CPDA urges Congress to direct the Natural Resources Conservation
Service to update conservation practice standards to reflect current
adjuvant and application technologies. We also recommend establishing a
Conservation Title pilot program that offers incentives for growers who
incorporate drift reduction adjuvants or other optimization tools into
their conservation practices. These relatively small investments can
yield significant environmental returns.
In addition, CPDA supports increased Federal investment in applied
research and demonstration projects through Land-Grant Universities and
regional Centers of Excellence. These centers can serve as innovation
hubs for testing new spray technologies, validating application
strategies, and supporting farmer adoption through education and
outreach.
Addressing the Technical Assistance Gap
As conservation and stewardship expectations increase, farmers need
timely, site-specific guidance to implement effective practices.
Technical Service Providers (TSPs) are an important part of that
support system, helping producers design and apply conservation plans
that meet agronomic, environmental, and regulatory goals.
CPDA supports the steps USDA has taken to address this issue,
including the Memorandum of Understanding that expanded opportunities
for non-Federal entities to assist with TSP training and certification.
This effort has helped improve flexibility and expand capacity.
To build on this progress, CPDA supports the bipartisan Increased
TSP Access Act, which would codify and streamline these improvements to
ensure long-term consistency. By allowing more organizations to
participate in training and credentialing, the bill would expand the
pool of qualified providers and improve the delivery of conservation
programs. It is a smart, scalable approach that helps farmers get the
technical assistance they need while supporting the broader goals of
the conservation title.
CPDA urges Congress to include this bipartisan proposal in the
upcoming farm bill and ensure that farmers have the support they need
to implement important conservation practices.
Advancing Practical ESA Compliance
One of the most consequential regulatory shifts underway involves
the Endangered Species Act. After years of litigation, EPA is now
integrating ESA consultation into pesticide registration decisions.
EPA has proposed a suite of strategies such as the Vulnerable
Species Pilot and broader herbicide and insecticide strategies that aim
to reduce risk to listed species through broader use restrictions and
mitigation. But many of these approaches rely on buffers or
prohibitions that may not reflect actual risk or real-world application
practices.
There is a better path. CPDA believes that practical mitigation,
especially through technologies like drift reduction adjuvants,
appropriate nozzle use, and precision spray equipment should be at the
center of EPA's ESA compliance strategy. These tools can reduce off-
target movement without taking acres out of production or forcing
farmers into costly programmatic detours. They are adaptable, proven,
and scalable.
CPDA supports continued collaboration between EPA, USDA, technology
developers, and grower groups to refine and expand the use of these
mitigation tools. We also urge Congress to ensure that ESA compliance
frameworks are transparent, consistent, and based on sound science.
Defending the Integrity of the U.S. Pesticide Regulatory System
The United States has the most scientifically rigorous and
transparent pesticide regulatory system in the world. Led by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with support from USDA, FDA, and
state agencies, this system is grounded in a risk-benefit framework
that considers both hazard and exposure, evaluates potential impacts to
human health and the environment, and includes special protections for
children and vulnerable populations. It is a system that works when it
is properly resourced, consistently applied, and guided by science
rather than rhetoric.
Crop protection products undergo extensive review under FIFRA and
the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). This includes multi-pathway
risk assessments, ecological impact evaluations, drinking water safety
modeling, and strict residue limits that are typically 100 times or
more below levels shown to cause harm. Labels are legally enforceable,
and product use is subject to regular oversight and compliance.
Unfortunately, the integrity of this system is being challenged by
recent narratives that rely on emotion, misinformation, and flawed
analysis. The MAHA Commission's initial report undermines trust in the
regulatory process by citing unverifiable sources, omitting key
stakeholder voices including farmers, food producers, and scientists,
and making sweeping claims not grounded in the science or structure of
the current system. Public discourse driven by such narratives risks
weakening regulatory confidence and undermining evidence-based
policymaking.
Science-based, risk-benefit regulation is not only compatible with
protecting public health and the environment, it is essential to
achieving those goals. Pesticides play a critical role in securing the
food supply, enabling sustainable farming practices like conservation
tillage, and protecting communities from disease-carrying pests. Global
examples, such as the recent crisis in Sri Lanka, show what can happen
when political decisions override agronomic and scientific expertise.
CPDA urges Congress and the Administration to reaffirm support for
the U.S. regulatory framework and reject efforts to politicize or
weaken it. That includes fully funding the EPA's Office of Pesticide
Programs, which is central to ensuring timely reviews, maintaining
regulatory confidence, and enabling continued innovation. It also means
ensuring that future iterations of the MAHA strategy meaningfully
include agricultural stakeholders and respect the credibility of the
nation's science-based institutions.
U.S. farmers, scientists, and public health professionals are
united in their commitment to safe, effective, and responsible
pesticide use. CPDA and our members are proud to be part of that shared
commitment, and we remain focused on strengthening a system that
protects both productivity and public trust.
Conclusion
Innovation in agriculture is not limited to new chemistries. It is
also about how we use technology smarter, how we deliver stewardship
more efficiently, and how we make regulatory systems work better for
farmers and the environment alike. CPDA appreciates the Committee's
continued focus on these issues and welcomes the opportunity to
contribute solutions.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to
your questions and to continued collaboration as Congress works to
advance agricultural innovation and support the farmers who make it
possible.
The Chairman. Mr. Abbott, thank you so much for your
testimony, much appreciated.
Dr. Wyant, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF KARL WYANT, Ph.D., DIRECTOR OF AGRONOMY, NUTRIEN,
TEMPE, AZ
Dr. Wyant. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Thompson,
Ranking Member Craig, and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
innovations in crop production, including biostimulants.
My name is Karl Wyant, and I serve as the Director of
Agronomy at Nutrien. I am also a certified crop advisor and
certified professional agronomist through the American Society
of Agronomy, where I advise growers on their inputs and help
solve problems during the growing season.
Nutrien is the world's largest provider of crop inputs,
including fertilizers and agronomic services, supporting
hundreds of thousands of grower customers across the United
States and globally. We serve 45 states through our extensive
retail network where we provide seed, crop protection tools,
fertilizer, and agronomic services, supporting both
conventional and organic farmers of many crops and farm sizes.
We are proud to be a leader in agricultural innovation,
including plant biostimulant products.
Plant biostimulants are a class of crop inputs that
includes diverse substances, such as humic acids, seaweed
extracts, beneficial microbes, and protein hydrolysates, among
others. These work differently than fertilizers or pesticides,
which add nutrients directly to the plant or soil or protect
the plant from pests and diseases. Biostimulants work by
enhancing the plant or soil's natural processes, in essence,
triggering the plant's own systems to boost nutrient release
and uptake, improving stress tolerance to heat and cold, and
supporting overall plant and soil health.
For example, Nutrien's Reacted Carbon Technology platform
was shown in a study to improve yields in wine grapes by 13
percent over a control plot. This product works by stimulating
microbial growth in the soil, which improves soil conditions
and root growth, and therefore, improves the ability of the
plant to access water from the soil. This study took place in
drought-prone California, highlighting the usefulness of
biostimulants in a fertilizer program to improve grower
outcomes. Biostimulants can also improve environmental
outcomes, such as reducing nutrient loss, improving fertilizer
use efficiency, and supporting plant resilience to extreme
weather events.
Unfortunately, plant biostimulants face an uncertain and
inconsistent regulatory framework. There is currently no
Federal definition for plant biostimulants, leaving a state
patchwork of regulations leading to inconsistent labeling and
marketing claims, which could ultimately impact growers.
Additionally, incorrectly treating biostimulants as pesticides
delays innovation and denies useful tools for farmers.
That is why we are urging support for the bipartisan Plant
Biostimulant Act of 2025 (H.R. 3783). This bill establishes a
science-based Federal definition of plant biostimulant, aligned
with international plant nutrition standards already recognized
in the EU, Canada, and other major agricultural economies. The
bill will provide regulatory clarity and consistency across all
50 states; ensure biostimulants are recognized as a distinct
input category and avoid misclassification under FIFRA; improve
the integrity of product registration; and keep U.S. growers
competitive with China, Brazil, and the EU.
I strongly urge the Committee to support the Plant
Biostimulant Act and its inclusion in the upcoming farm bill so
our farmers have the tools they need to meet the challenges of
the future.
Thank you again for your time and for your continued
leadership in supporting American agriculture. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wyant follows:]
Prepared Statement of Karl Wyant, Ph.D., Director of Agronomy, Nutrien,
Tempe, AZ
Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and Members
of the Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
emerging innovations in crop production. My name is Karl Wyant, and I
serve as Director of Agronomy at Nutrien. It is an honor to speak on
behalf of growers, agribusinesses, and researchers who are at the
forefront of advancing sustainable agriculture--and specifically, to
highlight the growing importance of plant biostimulants.
Nutrien is the world's largest provider of crop inputs and
agronomic services, supporting hundreds of thousands of grower
customers across the United States and globally. We produce all three
macronutrients: potash, phosphate, and nitrogen in North America. We
also serve 45 states through our extensive retail network, where we aim
to provide everything the grower needs to grow a crop, including seed,
crop protection tools, fertilizer, and agronomic advice, supporting
conventional and organic farmers of a wide variety of crops and farm
sizes. We are proud to be a leader in agricultural innovation,
including the development and distribution of plant biostimulant
products.
In addition to our proprietary portfolio of Loveland Products, we
also partner with innovative agricultural technology providers (such as
Agricen--USA) to help scale and commercialize their active ingredients
and novel formulations, ensuring new tools reach the growers who need
them most. A robust research pipeline ensures timely discovery of new
ingredients, subsequent field trials and formulation optimization, and,
ultimately, commercialization of new products, including biostimulants.
Some of you may be familiar with the term, but for those who are
not, plant biostimulants are a class of crop inputs that include
substances such as humic acids, seaweed extracts, beneficial
microbials, and protein hydrolysates. These works differently than
fertilizers, which provide nutrients directly to the plant and are
responsible for supporting 50% of modern crop yield potential, and are
distinct from pesticides, which help protect the plant from harmful
pests and disease. Uniquely, biostimulants work by enhancing the
plant's or the soil's natural processes--boosting nutrient release and
uptake, improving stress tolerance to heat and cold, and supporting
overall plant and soil health.
For example, Nutrien's Reacted Carbon TechnologyTM (RCT)
product platform encompasses a wide range of complex carbon mixtures
that have been precisely designed for specific performance and
agronomic benefits. Derived from leonardite, the active ingredients are
a complex mixture of molecules ranging in size, composition, and
chemical functionality, which provide a range of benefits the to the
crop, including improved phosphorus nutrient availability, which can
result in higher yields. This is but one example of how biostimulants,
along with a sound fertilizer management plan, can drive improved
grower outcomes at the farmgate.
Biostimulants can also play a significant role in improving
environmental outcomes. Depending on the product and the science of its
mode of action, many biostimulants enhance nutrient uptake, reducing
nutrient loss through runoff or volatilization and enabling more
efficient fertilizer use. Some support plant resilience in the face of
extreme weather events such as drought, flooding, soil salinity, or
temperature fluctuations--tools that are increasingly vital for our
growers to manage their day-to-day operations. It is no surprise the
biostimulant industry has grown at a steady 10% compound annual growth
rate since 2010.
Despite their promise and innovative potential, plant biostimulants
face an outdated and inconsistent regulatory framework. There is
currently no Federal definition for plant biostimulants, leaving states
to interpret and regulate them individually. This patchwork approach
leads to confusion, inconsistent labeling, and barriers to interstate
commerce. It creates unnecessary hurdles for manufacturers,
distributors, and--most importantly--uncertainty about product use,
trial data quality and marketing claims, which could ultimately impact
outcomes for growers.
Over the last few years, our industry has worked to address this
gap through the adoption of a model ``beneficial substances'' bill,
approved by the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials
(AAPFCO) in February 2024. This model provides a clear definition for
plant biostimulants, a path to market and has already been adopted or
implemented in over a dozen states through legislation or rulemaking.
However, without a Federal definition, inconsistency in evidence-
based, regulatory qualification standards, and the risk of
misclassification under Federal laws like the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,(FIFRA) remains. Biostimulants may be
wrongly treated as pesticides or plant growth regulators--delaying
innovation, adding unnecessary costs, and creating compliance
uncertainty by our state fertilizer regulatory partners.
That is why we are urging support for the bipartisan Plant
Biostimulant Act of 2025, introduced by Representatives Panetta and
Baird in the House, and Senators Marshall and Padilla in the Senate.
This bill establishes a science-based Federal definition of ``plant
biostimulant,'' aligned with international plant nutrition standards
already recognized in the European Union, Canada, and other leading
agricultural economies.
The bill will provide regulatory clarity and consistency across all
50 states; ensure biostimulants are recognized as a distinct input
category--not as fertilizers or pesticides; help avoid
misclassification under FIFRA; allow for the standardization of
qualifying evidence for product registration, encourage broader
adoption of sustainable farming practices; spur private investment in
biostimulant research and development; and most importantly, help the
U.S. stay competitive with growers in Brazil, China, and the European
Union.
Inclusion of this legislation in the upcoming farm bill would be a
major step forward for American agriculture. It supports innovation,
sustainability, and the long-term viability of our food production
systems and food security.
To remain a global leader in agricultural innovation, the U.S. must
adopt a clear and consistent framework for plant biostimulants. I
strongly urge the Committee to support the Plant Biostimulant Act of
2025 and include it in the farm bill. This is about more than
regulatory alignment--it is about equipping our farmers with the best
and most innovative tools they need to meet the challenges of the
future.
Thank you again for your time and for your continued leadership in
supporting American agriculture.
The Chairman. Dr. Wyant, thank you so much for your
testimony.
Mr. Witherbee, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF BRYAN J. WITHERBEE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, AGRAGENE, INC., ST. LOUIS, MO
Mr. Witherbee. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify at today's hearing. My name is Bryan Witherbee, and I
am President and CEO for Agragene Incorporated.
Agragene is an innovative agricultural biotechnology
company working to transform how we manage pest species:
sustainably, precisely, and without reliance on chemical
pesticides. Agragene was fostered in the vibrant St. Louis
biotech ecosystem with early support from BioSTL and
BioGenerator, two nationally recognized organizations dedicated
to advancing science-driven startups and building next-
generation technologies in agriculture, health, and the
environment. Agragene is advancing a groundbreaking approach to
insect pest control, precision-guided sterile insect technique,
or pgSIT, to meet the urgent challenges facing growers today.
Modern agriculture is under increasing stress. Invasive
pests, climate-related migration, resistance to pesticides, and
environmental concerns are driving the need for safer, more
targeted pest control tools. At the same time, the outdated
U.S. regulatory system, based on legislation and guidance
written decades ago, struggle to accommodate modern biological
innovations. Our regulators are often constrained by these
outdated frameworks, lacking the authority and tools to
flexibly evaluate 21st century technologies, even when they
offer far safer and more sustainable alternatives to legacy
chemical or genetic products.
Agragene's pgSIT technology presents a modern evolution of
sterile insect technique, a method used for decades to suppress
pest populations like Mediterranean fruit fly and the New World
screwworm. Traditional SIT uses radiation to sterilize insects,
but this process often causes broad, unpredictable DNA damage,
reducing male fitness and performance in the field. pgSIT, by
contrast, uses modern gene-editing tools like CRISPR to
precisely and reliably edit the genes responsible for fertility
and female viability, producing sterile males and only sterile
males. These males are healthy, competitive, and self-limiting.
When released into the environment, they mate with wild
females, leading to population suppression without harming non-
target species or leaving behind any residues. pgSIT is
species-specific, scalable, and aligned with modern agriculture
and ecological priorities.
Agragene's leading application is targeted towards spotted-
winged drosophila, one of the most economically damaging
invasive pests in soft fruit crops across North America and
Europe. The annual economic impact from SWD in North America
alone is around $1 billion. Existing control options for SWD
rely heavily on chemical pesticides, the average age of the
most widely used insecticides by berry growers is over 42 years
old. These insecticides must be applied repeatedly, and as a
result, SWD populations have developed resistance. pgSIT offers
a breakthrough alternative.
To validate our technology, university researchers at land-
grant institutions in Washington, California, Oregon, Michigan,
and Minnesota are currently conducting performance evaluation
under controlled conditions. These trials, in partnership with
leading entomologists and public-sector scientists, demonstrate
strong institutional support for pgSIT's real-world potential
as a safe, effective, and sustainable pest control method.
Despite this progress, regulatory uncertainty continues to
limit deployment. Technologies like pgSIT don't fit neatly
within categories defined by outdated laws like FIFRA or Plant
Protection Act. Current agency guidance does not provide
regulators with the flexibility they need to evaluate modern
gene-edited tools based on their precision, safety profile, or
ecological behavior. As a result, innovators face costly
delays, inconsistent treatment, and significant barriers to
commercialization, even for technologies that outperform
conventional methods in both safety and effectiveness.
Modernizing our regulatory system is not only necessary to
bring better tools to growers, but also essential to national
preparedness and biosecurity. The U.S. has faced costly
disruptive outbreaks of invasive pests such as New World
screwworm, Mexican fruit fly, and Mediterranean fruit fly. The
next outbreak is inevitable. Without a modern regulatory
framework that enables prior approval and proactive validation
of precision biocontrol tools like pgSIT, we risk being caught
unprepared.
To fix this, we must update Federal legislation and agency
authority to reflect the realities of 21st century biology,
create science-based risk-proportionate pathways that recognize
the unique properties of biological and gene-edited pest
control tools. Enhanced interagency coordination is absolutely
critical to streamline reviews and eliminate duplication. And
then support field validation programs in advance of emergency
needs so that safe, effective tools are ready for rapid
deployment when threats arise.
Cost and speed to market is absolutely critical to startup
and emerging companies like Agragene. This is truly a matter of
survival. Therefore, an efficient, transparent, risk-based
system is essential. The U.S. has the opportunity to lead the
world in agricultural innovation, but we must equip our
regulatory agencies with the modern tools, guidance, and
authorities they need to support that future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Witherbee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bryan J. Witherbee, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Agragene, Inc., St. Louis, MO
Chairman Thompson Ranking Member Craig and Members of the
Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing. My
name is Bryan Witherbee and I am President and CEO for Agragene, Inc.
Agragene is an innovative agricultural biotechnology company
working to transform how we manage pest species--sustainably,
precisely, and without reliance on chemical pesticides. Agragene was
fostered in the vibrant St. Louis biotech ecosystem, with early support
from BioSTL and BioGenerator, two nationally recognized organizations
dedicated to advancing science-driven startups and building next-
generation technologies in agriculture, health, and the environment.
Agragene is advancing a groundbreaking approach to insect pest control,
precision-guided Sterile Insect Technique (pgSIT), to meet the urgent
challenges facing growers and regulatory systems today.
Modern agriculture is under increasing stress. Invasive pests,
climate-related migration, resistance to pesticides, and environmental
concerns are driving the need for safer, more targeted pest control
tools. At the same time, outdated U.S. regulatory systems-based on
legislation and guidance written decades ago--struggle to accommodate
modern biological innovations. Our regulators are often constrained by
these outdated frameworks, lacking the authority and tools to flexibly
evaluate 21st-century technologies, even when they offer far safer and
more sustainable alternatives to legacy chemical or genetic products.
Agragene's pgSIT technology represents a modern evolution of the
Sterile Insect Technique (SIT), a method used for decades to suppress
pest populations like the Mediterranean fruit fly and New World
Screwworm. Traditional SIT uses radiation to sterilize insects, but
this process often causes broad, unpredictable DNA damage, reducing
male fitness and performance in the field.
pgSIT, by contrast, uses modern gene editing tools like CRISPR, to
precisely and reliably edit the genes responsible for fertility and
female viability, producing sterile males, and only sterile males.
These males are healthy, competitive, and self-limiting. When released
into the environment, they mate with wild females, leading to
population suppression without harming non-target species or leaving
behind any residues. pgSIT is species-specific, scalable, and aligned
with modern agricultural and ecological priorities.
Agragene's lead application is targeting Spotted Wing Drosophila
(SWD), one of the most economically damaging invasive pests in soft
fruit crops across North America and Europe. The annual economic impact
from SWD in North America alone is around $1 billion. Existing control
options for SWD rely heavily on chemical pesticides, the average age of
the most widely used insecticides by berry growers is 42 years. These
insecticides must be applied repeatedly and as a result SWD populations
have developed resistance, not to mention that these insecticides can
cause collateral harm to beneficial insects. pgSIT offers a
breakthrough alternative.
To validate pgSIT SWD technology, university researchers at land-
grant institutions in Washington, California, Oregon, Michigan, and
Minnesota are currently conducting performance evaluations under
controlled conditions. These trials, in partnership with leading
entomologists and public-sector scientists, demonstrate strong
institutional support for pgSIT's real-world potential as a safe,
effective, and sustainable pest control method.
Despite this progress, regulatory uncertainty continues to limit
deployment. Technologies like pgSIT don't fit neatly within categories
defined by outdated laws like FIFRA or the Plant Protection Act.
Current agency guidance does not provide regulators with the
flexibility they need to evaluate modern gene-edited tools based on
their precision, safety profile, or ecological behavior. As a result,
innovators face costly delays, inconsistent treatment, and significant
barriers to commercialization--even for technologies that outperform
conventional methods in every key measure of safety and effectiveness.
Modernizing our regulatory system is not only necessary to bring
better tools to growers, but also essential to national preparedness
and biosecurity. The U.S. has faced costly, disruptive outbreaks of
invasive pests such as New World Screwworm, Mexican Fruit Fly, and
Mediterranean Fruit Fly. The next outbreak is inevitable. Without a
modern regulatory framework that enables pre-approval and proactive
validation of precision biocontrol tools, like pgSIT, we risk being
caught unprepared.
To fix this, we must:
Update Federal legislation and agency authority to reflect
the realities of 21st-century biology.
Create science-based, risk-proportionate pathways that
recognize the unique properties of biological and gene-edited
pest control tools.
Enhance interagency coordination is absolutely critical to
streamline reviews and eliminate duplication.
Support field validation programs in advance of emergency
needs, so safe and effective tools are ready for rapid
deployment when threats arise.
Agragene is proud to be part of the U.S. innovation ecosystem
working at the intersection of agriculture, public health, and
biotechnology. With support from organizations like BioSTL and
BioGenerator, and in partnership with leading public researchers, we
are demonstrating that sustainable, scalable, and precise pest control
is possible. But for these solutions to reach growers and respond to
emerging threats, our regulatory system must evolve with the science.
Cost and speed to market is absolutely critical to startup and
emerging companies. This is truly a matter of survival. Therefore, an
efficient, transparent, risk-based system is essential. The USDA,
specifically, has made great strides in reforming regulations for
certain new technologies. Now is the time and opportunity to expand
both scope and applicability of these changes for other technologies,
and for other agencies. A system readily adaptable to new innovative
technologies, such as gene-editing and other gene modifications
systems, and importantly, not only limited to plants.
The U.S. has the opportunity to lead the world in agricultural
innovation--but we must equip our regulatory agencies with the modern
tools, guidance, and authorities they need to support that future.
The Chairman. Mr. Witherbee, thank you so much for your
testimony.
At this time, Members will be recognized for questions in
order of seniority alternating between Majority and Minority
Members and in order of arrival. For those who joined us after
the hearing has convened, you will be recognized for 5 minutes
each in order to allow us to get to as many questions as
possible.
At this time, I will recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma,
Mr. Lucas, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our
witnesses for testifying here today.
Mr. Abbott, your testimony touches on the importance of
producer choice and flexibility for pest management strategies,
yet the EPA's complex regulatory framework often makes it
difficult for producers to access new and innovative crop
protection products and post-patent products. Can you explain
the regulatory hoops that a company like yours has to jump
through before a product can hit the marketplace?
Mr. Abbott. Thank you, Congressman Lucas. Yes, so we help
our customers develop inert systems for their post-patent
chemistries that they are actually--so we support and do a
supporting role. They ultimately submit, but we do the behind-
the-scenes work with them, so we try to make sure that they
have everything they need from the confidential statement of
formula to everything that they can think of.
Mr. Lucas. What, if anything, can Congress do to clear up
the regulatory burden for innovators and bring products to the
market faster? From your observations, what can we do?
Mr. Abbott. Well, I thank you for PRIA 5, and that was a
great start. We are working towards it with Lee Zeldin coming
on board, and we are starting to push through the backlog, but
we have a long way to go. I would say we need to be adequately
funded. I know you guys have pushed that forward, but we really
need you to work with your colleagues, if at all possible, on
the Appropriations Committee to try to get full funding
because, as of right now, this is the third year in a row we
are 20 percent light on funding on the OPP.
Mr. Lucas. Mr. Witherbee, your company has modernized the
sterile insect fly technique to target a pest that is
especially catastrophic to soft fruit crops. Your testimony
touches on the unique challenges your company faces with
regulatory uncertainty, but can you expand on this for a little
bit? And as you are thinking about that, does the current
regulatory framework incentivize new technologies? And if not,
what can we do to help ensure that we incentivize innovative
technologies like your own?
Mr. Witherbee. I think that is the tough thing is that the
legislation that is there has been there for chemicals. We are
looking at modern breakthroughs that aren't necessarily there
based in plants, or in our case, insects, or even biologicals.
Part of it is the framework is not set up to handle those well.
The expertise that is available for the EPA and the USDA is
very focused on what they used to do, which was a lot of
chemical pesticides and insecticides that went through.
Updating the talent pool there, as well as the ability to
handle some of these new technologies that fit very close, so
my example would be that Agragene is being treated as a
pesticide even though we are not really a chemical that is
being applied to anything. It is a biological material, but it
is going down that path. So giving a little bit of flexibility
to the people that are in the EPA and the USDA is really
important.
Also, because it doesn't fit clearly into any of those
categories, we are actually having to go through both the EPA
and the USDA for regulation, and part of that is alignment is
important. So part of it is that one agency can be a little
slower than another and would keep us from getting to
commercialization, which with a startup is vital that we get
through. We have limited funding. Part of it is needing to get
through some of those regulatory processes in order to show the
proof of our technology. And that is true of a lot of these
different companies.
Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. Mr. Abbott, turning back to you,
your testimony mentions that many post-patent products still
face the same backlog of approval at the EPA that the new
chemistries face. Can you share with us your perspective on why
this is continuing to occur even when these products have been
in use for decades in most cases?
Mr. Abbott. Well, where it stands, and as I understand how
the system works, they are required to go in through
registration as well, so they don't leapfrog. They are still
put in the line, and so if there is a backlog already, it is
going to continue, right? That is where we are at. So until we
get adequate staffing on the OPP, I think you are going to
continue to see that be an issue even though it is maybe 40
years of chemistry. Anytime you make a change, it goes into the
EPA for re-registration and re-evaluation.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you. And thank you for the courtesy, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Minnesota, our
distinguished Ranking Member, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Witherbee, I am concerned that reduced funding and
support for research is going to have serious downstream
effects on new products in the private-sector. You noted in
your testimony that you work with various land-grant
institutions, including the great University of Minnesota. How
do these research partnerships work, and how does public
funding for research help to catalyze development of innovative
private-sector products?
Mr. Witherbee. Yes, thank you. Previously, like a lot of
these land-grant universities, the professors there are tapped
within the state to look at different technologies for their
growers within the state. Part of the funding comes from either
their ability to apply to the government for grants and/or the
university for grants, that money coming, obviously, from what
had been funded towards research and science.
The other part of it comes from companies like us. And so,
as I mentioned before, part of our innovation of getting
products through and showing proof is that we need to attract
investors, and investors look at track record and look at how
well you have been able to get your product tested and moved
forward through regulatory approvals. That is all kind of in a
tough state when part of the university funding is held up or
from the government based on some of this. And a lot of it is
important pieces.
Very similarly, we had talked a little bit about funding
towards spotty-winged drosophila, but it is also for New World
screwworm, very similar, something that now is important to
protect not just for berries but also now cattle and other
things. And so these technologies getting tested and approved
at some of these universities is really important for
preparedness and to be ready to deploy commercially.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much.
Mr. Abbott, in your testimony you noted that Congress has
fallen short of the minimum funding level that is set for OPP.
You also said that a well-funded OPP benefits everyone. I
completely agree. Are you concerned that recent staff
reductions at EPA will lead to greater delays in product
approval? And do these cuts, coupled with the anti-science
rhetoric coming from Secretary Kennedy, create a healthy
business environment?
Mr. Abbott. The way I understand it, I believe Lee Zeldin
is moving the parts around. He is taking one over--because you
are talking EPA in general. I am focused more on the OPP side
of things where the backlog is, and that is what is important
to us. So I believe as long as we can continue to move staffing
and full fund the staffing there, that is where we are going to
unstick the drain if you will, right? That is where the holdup
is on our constituents over here on the post-patent, as well as
the multinationals. We are all affected by it.
Ms. Craig. And the consequences if we aren't able to fully
fund and that gets slowed down, explain that.
Mr. Abbott. The consequences are the farmers, in general,
they are the ones that pay, right? Who is using the chemistries
out there right now? If I go back in my career--and I have been
at this for about 29, 30 years--a lot of the chemistries that I
started out in my career are no longer there. And that is a
good thing because some of them needed to go by the wayside. We
have new innovation, new greener chemistries, and it is all
around public safety and stewardship and environmental
stewardship. So, go ahead. I am sorry.
Ms. Craig. No, I was just going to say, is it your
understanding that family farmers across this country are
committed to good environmental stewardship? I am not sure, is
environmental a banned word or not. I am going to just----
Mr. Abbott. No. Having been boots-on-the-ground and
actually talking with and working with farmers for most of my
career, it is not a bad word. They understand it, and they were
here. They understand if they don't take care of their land,
they won't have it. So they really need to take care of it and
steward it so it continues to produce.
Ms. Craig. That has certainly been my experience with
Minnesota farmers. There is no group of people more committed
to the land and good environmental stewardship than family
farmers across this nation.
So thank you so much, Mr. Abbott, and I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Abbott. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady and now recognize the
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Austin Scott, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I can honestly tell you the last thing I did before I
left home was to mix 15 gallons of glyphosate, spray a bunch of
weeds, and I have been using that product effectively for over
30 years, and I think it is unfortunate what has happened. I
think the litigation and the false narrative around that
product is something that we need to pay attention to because
it has been very effective at taking something that we need off
of the markets in the United States, and it is expensive. And
farmers don't just buy chemicals for the sake of buying
chemicals, right? And the new technology is expensive.
And one of the things I don't think we talk enough about is
the land-grant institutions and research, and then the
extension that has to come with that research for our ag
communities to produce the products that we all depend on being
on the shelves when the other 98 or 99 percent of Americans
that aren't involved in agriculture go to the grocery store.
So with that said, and again going back to the land-grant
institutions, how can industry and producers more effectively
partner with the land-grant institutions to not only accelerate
the development of these technologies but to ensure their
practical deployment on the farm? And what additional support
or policy initiatives might strengthen these collaborations to
benefit both the innovation and the extension that is necessary
for farmer adoption? Any of you can answer that question,
please.
Dr. Wyant. Thank you. That is a great question. I think the
first thing that we can do is recognize the role that extension
does play in new product discovery, new ingredient discovery,
workforce development. I am sure in this Committee, any of you
have had a stint in an extension lab at some point doing
research or maybe took a class for an extension professor.
So I think recognizing the extension's role in the supply
chain process and in the innovation process is key. And I know
my extension colleagues, they are sometimes strapped for that
funding. They need to do the work, and I think what we could do
is help give back to those extension researchers and make sure
that they are getting the work done in the field that needs to
get done. Thank you.
Mr. Cameron. In California, we have the University of
California, and we have the University of California Ag and
Natural Resources Department. We know that the research done on
many of the land-grant colleges and universities does get
transferred to the growers through the ag extension service. We
have relationships with them on-farm, and we actually work with
some of the researchers directly with the universities to do
cutting-edge technology on our farm so that we can show other
people some of the new advances that can be applicable really
throughout California and the world. So having the connection
between the university and the advisors is critical for getting
information out to growers.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Mr. Abbott, I am going to come
to you with another question if I can, down to a minute and a
half, but I do want to express one other concern that I have,
and it is the accumulation of this technology by China through
ChemChina. And I think we are being naive as Americans to think
that allowing somebody who is now no longer an aggressive
economic competitor but actually an adversary to control the
chemicals that we need in the food supply chain, that that is
not going to come back to bite us.
Mr. Abbott, in your testimony you provided an overview on
the challenging delays occurring at the EPA related to the
regulatory review. I know you spoke to this, but with more than
$\1/2\ billion in post-patent and formulation improvement
products stuck in that review, can you elaborate to the
Committee why timely access to these innovations is just as
important, if not more important, than the new chemistry?
Mr. Abbott. Because it puts us in a better spot. We need to
remain competitive because otherwise we just hand it over, to
your point, the Chinese, right? And they are going to come in
and they are going to take no prisoners, so to speak, to
paraphrase there. So I think to get our growers in a
competitive situation, we need to make sure we continue to
quickly push those through, especially when the chemistries
have been around for quite some time.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes, sir. Gentlemen, thank you
for being here. I look forward to continuing the discussion.
Hopefully, we will see bipartisan efforts to solve these
problems.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the 1 second.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
And now I recognize the other gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
David Scott, for 5 minutes.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Mr. Witherbee, excuse my cold,
but you all at your firm have been working with the SWD flies
for over 15 years. I want to talk about that because they are
targeting our blueberries and peaches, and we lead the nation
in producing blueberries and peaches. It is our great industry.
Over $400 million is what our farmers bring in. And yet many
Georgia farmers continue witnessing their crops being infested
and destroyed by these SWD flies. I want to talk about that
because it is putting both our supply chain and our farmers'
income at risk. So can you talk to me about that, Mr.
Witherbee? Can you expand on the benefits of Congress helping
to grow these public-private partnerships that you are involved
with? And can you help us in this area? What are you
specifically doing?
Mr. Witherbee. Yes, thank you. So actually, we just spoke
with a professor at the University of Georgia that we will
start to do some testing on blueberries and peaches as well in
Georgia here very soon.
Part of the process going forward is that this is, and we
talked about chemicals and other things of that nature. This is
a safer--people do worry about their community. I had mentioned
in my talk that we are dealing with chemicals that have been
around for over 40 years. The only opportunity they have, and
your growers have, is to continue to spray those. We have built
resistance. A lot of those are harmful. Some of those did get
removed, and importantly so.
Unfortunately, they have no new tools because it is
specialty crops. It is a smaller footprint compared to corn and
soybean, et cetera. And, the average to create a new active
ingredient is 12 years of development and going through a
regulatory process and about $300 million, so it is very costly
to bring on a new pest chemical.
So technology like ours, which utilizes some of these new
modern tools, can allow to make these cheaper. So the
government has put in a lot of effort into making sterile
insects through different processes, particularly to protect
our borders from other invasive species. This is a modern
version of it that is actually a lot cheaper to do. We are able
to produce more sterile flies than what traditional sterile
insect tech can do, and they can be deployed.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Well, tell me what we can do
here in Congress. What existing laws or agency authorities
should we in Congress review to better assist our companies,
like yours, that are continuing to develop these new and
innovative technologies? What can we do to help you here in
Congress?
Mr. Witherbee. Yes, I think part of that is related to the
rules that the regulators are having to go through. Almost all
those were built for chemicals, not for these modern tools, so
there is not a lot of flexibility there. As I mentioned before,
this biological innovation, which is using CRISPR, which has
been shown to be very safe and effective and very precise at
gene editing, unfortunately is being treated like a chemical
because there is no other legislation that the regulators can
regulate to. So we are having to go through things that do not
make sense in terms of how long does the fly stay or active
ingredients stay? What is the effect on human health when it is
not really being applied, or what is the irritant level, et
cetera. These are all things that are part of the current rules
and regulations that they have to regulate to.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes, well, tell me, why
blueberries? Why peaches? These are the only two that they seem
to be targeting. Is there something about blueberries?
Mr. Witherbee. Yes, they are very sweet, and part of it is
they are soft-skinned, and so the way these insects affect the
fruit is that they lay their eggs by punching holes in soft
fruit, laying their eggs in there, and then once their eggs
lay, as they develop, the worms eat the fruit, and that would
cause them to be infested. We are trying to block that cycle
without spraying chemicals.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. So it is really because
Georgia's sweet peaches are just so sweet.
Mr. Witherbee. That is exactly right.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. All right. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from the land of sweet
fruit and now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Rouzer, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And as I was sitting here listening to the testimony and
some of the questions from my colleagues, it occurred to me,
when I was looking for a job, soon to be out of school at NC
State University, I was a chemistry, ag business management,
and ag econ major. That was a different stage of my life when I
was far more intelligent than I am now, and I had a lot of
different job offers from ag chemical companies. I say a lot,
certainly, as it relates to the number that are in business
now. What happened there? Why was there so much--and I think
this would just be good for the record. Why has there been so
much consolidation? Is it the regulatory environment? Has all
this been for the betterment of American agriculture, to its
detriment, or a mixed bag? I just throw that out for anybody
who might want to answer or take a stab at it.
Mr. Abbott. I wish I had an answer because when I started,
there was 13 multinationals, and we are down to four, roughly,
and one of which I used to work for and now is Corteva. I used
to work when it was DuPont Crop Protection. And why the
consolidation? I don't have a good answer. I am sure it is
somewhere around the regulatory. I am sure it is around their
boards looking at financials and making hard decisions on
whether or not to continue. I know that doesn't answer your
question, but----
Mr. Rouzer. Anybody else have a thought?
Mr. Witherbee. Yes, I would tie it to what I had said
before. In order for these companies, and even for smaller
ones, to come up with a new active ingredient outside of what
we know now it is 12 years of development and regulatory
approvals going through that process, so 12 years is a long
time, and it is about $300 million. That is a lot of money to
cover in terms of what you would have to sell in revenue. It is
just not worth it for a lot of them, and so a lot of them
consolidate because there is a need to do that for their
investors, for the people that have put money into the company.
I think beyond that, looking at then some of the smaller
companies like us that have new technologies and other things
going through, same kind of thing. It is a tough process to get
through the regulatory process. They wait for those to happen
and then may work to purchase those at some point, but it has
to be proven at that point.
Mr. Rouzer. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Witherbee, while we are on you, can you speak to the
lengths a company like yours goes through to demonstrate
environmental safety?
Mr. Witherbee. Yes, absolutely. So we are held to the same
standard everybody else is, and part of that is, is that there
is a series of testing. The rules are what the rules are in
terms of chemicals, so we have to prove out that they are not a
skin irritant, that they are not going to harm both the
environment or human health. You go through series of tests.
The problem is that you can put the data together and
provide that in a package, but it is still going to take you 15
to 19 months for the EPA to then look through that, or the
USDA, or both in our case. If that happens, then 19 months, 2
years, is a lifetime. It is a lot of money for us to be able to
keep up and going while we are waiting for those regulatory
approvals. So that process of kind of aligning the folks there,
then having kind of a quicker path to say, ``Yes, you have met
the standard of it is healthy to humans, it is not going to
harm humans, it is safe for the environment,'' and then allow
the testing at the institutions to go on, that is the tough
part. That waiting period is 3 to 4 years at times. That is
just a killer for a company that is living off of small
dollars.
Mr. Rouzer. Yes, absolutely. So just for the record, I have
introduced the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act (H.R. 3824,
119th Congress; H.R. 5089, 118th Congress) the last two
Congresses to end EPA or states from requiring permits under
the NPDES' program for discharges of registered pesticides if
they are used for their intended purposes and in compliance
with their pesticide label requirements. Do you think that is a
good bill or not a good bill?
Mr. Witherbee. It is a good bill if we can define what a
pesticide is, and so right now, that pesticide is being defined
as a chemical. A lot of the folks here are dealing with things
that are not just chemicals. We are dealing with whether it is
bacteria or insects or other soil treatments, et cetera. So if
it is not a chemical, then that applies across the board, and
that is what we are kind of looking for help with.
Mr. Rouzer. Yes. Well, I have only 13 seconds left, so I
will yield my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the
gentleman from California, Mr. Costa, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to dig a little deeper in terms of a part of a
conversation that we have been having on public-private
partnerships and investments in our land-grant universities and
our state universities as a part of that public-private
partnership for research in agriculture. As I said, change was
constant.
Mr. Cameron, you have been one of the innovative farmers
and are a role model, and you have done a whole host of efforts
as it relates to using various efforts to reduce the use of
pesticides. And I would like you to comment in terms of the
importance of that partnership with our research with not only
the USDA but the California State Department of Agriculture,
our land-grant universities, Cal State University, our field
stations that are at the cutting edge of developing these new
efforts to have more drought-resistant crops, those that are
less determinant on pests, more pest-resistant plants, and the
critical importance. I have been critical of this
Administration this year in their reduction of funding for
these kinds of programs, some that have been in efforts for
several years. Could you care to comment?
Mr. Cameron. Thank you, Congressman.
We know that there had been Federal funding frozen on 5
year projects, one at UC Merced. They were 2\1/2\ years into
the project. Their funding stopped. They didn't know what they
were going to be doing. This was critical to farming in
California. It was water-related. Fortunately, their funding
came back, and they are going to be able to finish their
project.
But we have seen where cuts have been made, projects have
been stopped in their tracks, and the uncertainty that that
brings is really devastating to the research that they are
working on, and ultimately to the growers within California and
the U.S.
Mr. Costa. Do you think it would be helpful if we attempted
to try to find an effort to figure out how many of these
programs throughout the country are being taken in which sound
research, sound science is taking place, and we are abruptly
canceling these efforts that are critical to the future of
American agriculture?
Mr. Cameron. Absolutely. We know that the research that we
are doing today is going to be the technology of our future. If
we hold back on agricultural research, that hurts all of
agriculture. It hurts the community. It hurts the whole process
of food production. So anything we can do to maintain funding
for serious agricultural research, we need to be on that. We
don't want to get behind. We know other countries are moving
ahead rapidly with technology and innovation, and I think we
should be the leaders in the United States.
Mr. Costa. Well, and with climate change and other factors
we are dealing with, food, again, is a national security issue,
and it will only grow in importance in our ability to compete.
You have a particular experience with the Lygus outbreak
and Pima cotton and the lack of effective tools that were
engaged in research. This is just one pest. There are others
who have mentioned it. The dialogue between the Environmental
Protection Agency and the California Department of Agriculture
Pesticide Research was trying to develop sustainable crop
protection. What happened when there was a disruption that took
place in the efforts to pursue this effort on Lygus?
Mr. Cameron. There was a situation in 2023 where Lygus
became an extremely important pest in cotton production. It
caused the bowl of the flower to drop off. Hence, you lose
production. There was a product that was registered throughout
the other states. It actually had a lawsuit against it in
California. It was brought back in. It still doesn't have full
registration. There was an emergency exemption in 2025. But in
2023, California Pima cotton growers lost $41 million of
production in just 1 year due to one pest.
Mr. Costa. My time is expiring, but quickly, California has
among the strictest pesticide and herbicide regulations in the
country. The efforts to harmonize our own state regulations
with the Federal protocol, are we having any success there?
Mr. Cameron. We know that the Federal EPA and the
California EPA, Department of Pesticide Regulations, are both
overburdened, trying to get new registrations since we have
dual registration. We need to coordinate. California needs to
coordinate with the Federal EPA so we have dual registration
going on at the same time parallel registration. Thank you.
Mr. Costa. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Cameron, it is good to see you again. Your testimony
highlighted the importance of crop protection products and the
rigorous regulatory framework the EPA carries out to ensure
these products are safe when used as directed. Under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Congress
has prohibited states from imposing additional or different
labeling and packaging requirements beyond the Federal
standards. Unfortunately, there has been misinterpretations
related to this policy which could eventually lead to an
unworkable patchwork of state regulations or growers losing
access to products altogether because of litigation.
As a grower in California who relies on these products,
what impact would it have on your operation if you were to lose
access to products if Congress does not act to clarify that
statute?
Mr. Cameron. Mr. Chairman, California many times is at a
disadvantage because we have dual registration. Products may be
available across the state line that aren't available within
our state. So if you have growers growing the same crop in two
different states, if you are in California, you don't have the
same tools to be able to move forward and protect your crop,
and many times it may be a safer material, a less expensive
material. We know costs of growing in California are extremely
expensive and highly regulated, so the patchwork that we see
going on tends to put our growers at a very strong
disadvantage. We would love to see uniformity throughout the
United States on labeling requirements.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, sir.
Mr. Abbott, much of your testimony was focused on the need
for a well-functioning EPA Office of Pesticide Programs. It
seems that over the past few years, the EPA has been slow to
register new chemistries which are of critical importance to
growers who need every tool that they can get to control
damaging pests, weeds, and diseases. What actions should
Congress consider to support a more efficient, science-based
EPA regulatory process that fosters innovation and ensures
growers have access to safe, effective crop protection tools?
Mr. Abbott. Well, if I might, going back in the history of
my career, I saw resistance firsthand, so I think it is
important that we fund the Office of Pesticide. You have heard
me say that already, and I think it is crucial that we continue
to make sure those dollars funnel down to adequate staffing so
we can push through those regulatory hurdles because ultimately
the grower pays for it, right? You have the ag value chain.
Yes, we are all involved in that from the manufacturers all the
way to distributors, but the growers are the ones that are
suffering, and ultimately, that translates down to us as the
consumer. If they can't grow the food, we can't buy the food.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Mr. Abbott.
One of the key drivers of innovation in agriculture,
particularly as we look at the inputs that producers rely on,
is having a regulatory system that is predictable, science-
based, and timely. To any of the panelists, can you discuss how
having a well-functioning regulatory framework enables
companies to invest in research and bring new products to the
market more efficiently? And what are the potential
consequences for farmers and the broader ag industry if
regulatory delays, inconsistent policy, or politicized
decision-making begin to erode the certainty that innovators
rely on to develop these tools? Do any of our panelists care to
respond to that?
Mr. Witherbee. Yes.
The Chairman. Mr. Witherbee?
Mr. Witherbee. I think having it being predictable, meaning
that we understand the time frames that really let you allow
for what money is going to be needed in order to get a new
concept through the regulatory process and then out into
commercial viability. Part of that would be very predictive in
terms of, you have provided all the science and all of the
requirements to the different agencies that they can go through
and check that and that you know that that is going to happen
in a timely 6 month period or something to that effect. Right
now, it is often paused and left to different timelines, and so
now you are left trying to figure out do I need to have enough
money to keep the company alive and the focus alive for 18 to
24 months instead of just 6. So I think having that
predictability is important for helping us understand what it
is going to take to get innovation across the line and out to
the growers.
The Chairman. In the little time I have left, anyone else
care to weigh in? Mr. Cameron?
Mr. Cameron. Yes, I think the delays and the expense that
go along with it prohibit small and medium startup companies
from getting engaged and getting products to the finish line.
They may have excellent products moving forward, but they don't
have the capital, as you have heard, to go through the long
waiting period of getting products to market. Thank you.
The Chairman. Which may certainly lead to consolidation as
well that we touched on.
Mr. Cameron. Exactly.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I am now pleased to recognize Mr. McGovern for 5 minutes.
Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you very much, and I appreciate
the witnesses' time, and I have learned a few things during the
testimony, but I don't have any questions for them directly.
I want to express some frustration not with you but kind of
with this Congress. I am worried about where Congress is going,
and I have to be frank. I think this hearing smells like cover
for what Republicans on this Committee actually want to do
about pesticide policy. It is not the kind of innovation and
precision that some of our witnesses touched on. They are
pursuing toxic substance deregulation and liability shields for
multibillion-dollar corporations. Look at what is happening
right now in the Interior Appropriations Committee. And they
don't want some of their voters who care about pesticide reform
to know that is what they are after, so we are having a hearing
to make it look like we are all on the same page.
Look, we use over a billion pounds of pesticides in this
country every year. And look, I understand why that is
important. I visit my local farms regularly, and we talk about
the challenges that farmers face while protecting their crops.
And I am not interested in telling farmers how to do their job,
but I am interested in protecting those farmers, their
families, and their employees from clear and present danger.
They need to know that the inputs they use aren't going to make
them sick, and it is our job to set up a system that takes that
burden off their plate.
Fully \1/3\ of pesticides used in the U.S. are banned in
other countries, in Europe, in Canada, and even China and
others because rigorous independent science has confirmed that
they present an unacceptable risk to human health. And I have
been working on reasonable pesticide reform for a long time. I
think that is the direction that we ought to move in, but that
is not where we are at.
But I just want to say something else in terms of
expressing my frustration. Mr. Chairman, last Friday, my
colleague from Massachusetts, Ayanna Pressley, and I attended a
listening session sponsored by an organization called Project
Bread on SNAP with local and state government officials,
leaders of nonprofits, but most importantly with people with
lived experiences.
Food insecurity and hunger is on the rise in this country,
and people are really worried about the impact that this big,
ugly bill that has just been signed into law is going to have
on them. We ought to be doing a hearing on that right now, what
the impacts of the big, ugly bill are going to be in terms of
hiking up food insecurity and hunger in this country. People
are struggling, they are working harder than ever and having
difficulty putting food on the table. SNAP recipients are
increasingly relying more on food pantries, on food banks, on
faith-based organizations to make sure that their families have
enough to eat.
They made it clear that the benefit that currently exists,
which is about $2 per person per meal, is not enough, and they
expressed horror about what is coming as a result of the
legislation that this Congress passed. I mean, state officials
are worried about how they are going to deal with the added
burden, hundreds of millions of dollars in additional
responsibility to make sure people in their states don't go
hungry. They don't know how they are going to do it. And we
talked to grandmothers and single parents and workers who think
that Washington doesn't care.
Look, this Committee is responsible for the cuts that are
in reconciliation with regard to SNAP. And I have to be honest
with you, we can't have business as usual. We can't make
believe like there is no big deal, that everything is just
going to work out because it is not.
And I have been reading talk about a new farm bill and
about how we are going to throw a few sweeteners here and there
to try to see whether we can pass a farm bill. I don't know how
we can move on a farm bill unless we fix reconciliation. I,
speaking for myself, do not want to be complicit in covering up
a Republican strategy that will dramatically increase food
insecurity and hunger in America.
I think it is important for this Committee not just to move
on. I think it is important for people to demand answers and to
try to find solutions about what we are going to do when people
lose their benefits. And again, working people who are on the
benefit right now can't make ends meet. And single mothers and
grandmothers, we heard the testimony, it is heartbreaking. If
you have ever met a hungry child in this country, it breaks
your heart.
And I worry very much that as a result of what this
Congress has done, what Republicans and Donald Trump have done,
we are going to see a huge spike. It is unacceptable. We cannot
have business as usual. We ought to be doing hearings on that,
and we ought to be figuring out a way to fix reconciliation. It
was rushed through. There is new policy that we had no hearings
on. We need to do better. And I urge my colleagues, again, to
prioritize the issue of hunger and food insecurity, which is
getting worse.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That is interesting that we now have to fix reconciliation,
which the root problems were the taxes increases that were
going to happen on middle- and low-income families, especially,
had that not happened, as well as a secure border and the costs
of an unsecure border to our country, as well as getting at
trying to tame a $2 trillion annual national deficit, all
right? So when do we ever start doing that? When do we ever
start rectifying that kind of overspending and what that does
to our national debt and our ability to service that debt if
interest rates were to ever go up dramatically?
So we talk about people having trouble making ends meet.
And I, as a farmer on a farming operation, have witnessed
firsthand just three seasons ago when the price of fuel doubled
and the price of fertilizer tripled, the price of our pesticide
materials increased dramatically. Where is that going to come
from? Is it going to come from the farmer taking less profit or
the trucker who hauls that or the fertilizer? None of those
people, the miller, nobody is going to take less. That is all
going to have to come finally at the end of it, at the bottom
line, at the supermarket where people buy the products we grow.
Otherwise, if any of those people in that chain are in the red,
the trucker, the fertilizer salesman, the farmer himself, then
it is not going to be around very long.
So what is the root problem in costs for families of buying
food, of keeping food on the table? Inflation, energy, the
prices of everything in that chain. Energy, taking the tilling
of the ground in the spring, the truck that brings the seed to
the field and the truck that hauls the grown product away. That
is the big problem here, and it is not going to be fixed by
government trying to throw more money at programs, so it needs
to be looked at right here with the cost of doing business
driven by government, by regulation, by taking away materials.
And the pesticides themselves, every generation is one that
is working even better to be environmentally clean,
environmentally sound, one that has a hold period that the
dissipation of it is completely gone by that. They are doing
amazing things with every new generation of pesticides, yet it
is made to sound like we are poisoning everybody if you are
using any of these materials, which really it boils down to
they do have a purpose, anything ending in the word -icide is
to kill a weed or an insect that you don't want in there,
right? So it comes down to the proper handling and application
by following the label that the EPA has approved.
So let me drill down on the EPA. Mr. Abbott, delays
occurring at the EPA in the regulatory review process, my notes
say that we have at least $\1/2\ billion in post-patent and
formulation improvement products that are sitting there waiting
in review. Can you talk a little bit about the timely work in
these innovations that is as important as the chemistry itself?
Mr. Abbott. Let me just understand the question. So you are
looking at the innovation. As far as what we do as a company--
and it goes back to my testimony within Adjuvants Unlimited
here, right--we try to improve upon the formulations that are
out there. Some of these are becoming more novel as well, even
though you take some of the older chemistry and you improve on
the formulation, and it is going to actually do a better job
killing the weeds, right? Because dead weeds don't breed
resistance. It is half-dead weeds that all of a sudden they can
reproduce, and then you have a problem, so it is----
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, dead men don't talk, dead weeds don't
come back, right?
Mr. Abbott. That is correct.
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Mr. Cameron, as a fellow Californian,
certainly, you have experienced a lot of the laughs and fun
that I have as a grower as well. We are in the rice business.
We may not have as tough as some of the row crops and such, but
in your testimony you had mentioned that consumers demand
blemish-free products, and that is kind of a sidebar thought
for me. If the product has to be that perfect, what is that
doing to the level of effort that farmers have to put in to
make sure that product is perfect instead of maybe slightly
blemish-free like you might get at a farmer's market or off
your own tree, for example?
Mr. Cameron. Right, it puts additional stress and
additional financial weight on having a product that looks good
in the market, no question. Consumers have preferences. I know
when I go to the store, being a farmer, I can usually pick out
probably the sweetest and the best-looking fruit, but most
consumers look for certain qualities of unblemished, high-
quality fruit. And to do that, it takes additional cost.
Mr. LaMalfa. A much higher level of effort to have that
perfect fruit instead of pretty darn good fruit, right?
Mr. Cameron. Yes, no, we grow many crops that are processed
where the quality has to be good but not perfect.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. Okay. I appreciate that.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Ms. Adams for 5 minutes.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses for being here today.
I would first like to make a statement about how deeply
concerned I am with the Trump Administration's handling of
pesticides. In May, the United States Department of Agriculture
published a final rule removing the requirement for applicators
to report their use of restricted-use pesticides, or RUPs. This
rule was issued without a public comment, without period or
notice, and it means that effective July 11, 2025, farmers and
other private applicators are no longer legally obligated to
record critical information such as the pesticide use,
application date, amount, location, and the crop treated. And
this is troubling because the Environmental Protection Agency
classifies certain pesticides as restricted use when they pose
serious health and environmental risks if not handled with
strict precautions. The EPA's list of RUPs spans 45 pages, and
it includes substances linked to severe issues such as
Parkinson's disease, birth defects, and other chronic
conditions. In the USDA's final rule notice, agency officials
dismissed these regulations as ``not a priority'' and states
that to the extent that there is any uncertainty about the
costs and benefits, it is the policy of the USDA to err on the
side of deregulation.
But the truth is, regulations protecting human health and
the environment should be strengthened, not eliminated. Growing
and harvesting food should be a safe and healthy experience for
everyone involved, from farm to plate. Farmers and farmworkers
must be able to trust that the tools that they use do not
threaten their health, their communities, or the ecosystems
that sustain their livelihoods. And families walking up and
down the aisles of grocery stores should be able to trust that
the products on the shelves are safe to consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record the
Rules and Regulations section of the Federal Register, which
speaks to the use of pesticides by certified applications.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The Federal Register Rule referred to is located on p.
75.]
Ms. Adams. Thank you.
Let me continue by saying that an increase in resistance to
pesticides means that pests are developing the ability to
survive exposure to pesticides that were previously effective.
This is a significant concern in agriculture and public health,
as it can lead to crop losses, disease outbreaks, and the need
for more potent and potentially harmful chemicals.
Mr. Witherbee, we have seen an increase in resistance to
pesticides over the years with limited new chemical
development. So can you speak to how technologies such as
Agragene's improve our ability to fight pests and limit
chemicals in the environment?
Mr. Witherbee. No, thank you. So part of the technology, in
particular to Agragene, development of using sterile insects,
would also then be very effective against resistant
populations. You start to decrease those resistant populations,
so you start to get rid of those, which would also make
chemicals more effective. Part of it would be kind of the
carry-on effect of reducing the amount that needs to be used,
also taking advantage of new technologies that are maybe a
little tougher for insects or pests to build resistance
against.
Ms. Adams. Okay. Would anyone else like to respond? Yes,
sir. Go ahead. You have 50 seconds.
Mr. Cameron. All right. We use a lot of different
technology on farm. We use pheromone for mating disruptions. We
use sterile release of moths to prevent mating of a navel
orangeworm so that we don't have to spray as often. In
California, we have a system. We actually are required to, for
any restricted material, put a notice of use, and it is
reported via a website. The location is within 1 square mile of
the application, and there are notifications that are sent via
email, text, or other ways to anyone who is interested in any
restricted material applications in their area. So we have been
very proactive in California to put this in place.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you, gentlemen.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking
Member Craig. Thank you for the witnesses for coming today.
I am in the second largest ag district in the country,
probably number one in corn and soybeans. And, when we look at
feeding the world, we need to create some of the safest and
most affordable food, fuel, and fiber, and we are currently
doing that. I am very grateful for all that you have noted.
These tools go through robust science- and risk-based
regulatory processes and ensure safety for human health and for
our families and for people around the world. And I would like
to just talk a little bit about this, of how we can get to the
next level, right? We know from the past what we have used, but
now when we start looking at FIFRA, a science-based process to
regulate distribution sale and the use of pesticides to ensure
human and environmental safety, and then you have PRIA, who
establishes a fee-based system to support timely review of
pesticide registration. So these are two significant tools that
we use to review and create science-based, safe production of
product.
So my question is this. We saw pesticide registrations fall
more than 70 percent over the last several years. And by the
way, I talked to Administrator Zeldin from the EPA, and he is
very well aware, and he said, Randy, we have to do something
about this. This is ridiculous that we are far behind. I mean,
these are great tools that are on the forefront, but they are
not out there yet.
So I want to talk to Mr. Abbott first. What are your
thoughts on this? How does this affect the current farming
community when it comes to crop protection tools and safety and
how we can look forward?
Mr. Abbott. Well, as I have already previously mentioned,
they pay for it, right? And they are looking for tools to
manage resistance. They need to rotate, right? I will use
fungicides. If you continue to use the same fungicide over and
over, you are going to develop a resistance at some point. So
in order to avoid that, you need to rotate, and that is where
the different tools come into play.
Mr. Feenstra. Right. So there is new cutting-edge tools
that are on the forefront. I mean, you start looking at that,
what that means. Less product going in the air, in the water,
and all this stuff. Can you elaborate on that a little bit of
what is out there?
Mr. Abbott. Sure. Well, I will go from the adjuvant side of
the thing, right? What you are adding to the tank, besides the
pesticide, the active ingredient, how do you make it work most
effectively? And that is managing drift. That is also making it
more effective, getting into either the plant tissue or the
insect, soft-bodied, whatever it is. It is influencing that
tank mix to a positive effect, right? You want to make sure--we
talked about dead weeds, right? You don't want to have to
respray. That is where you get more chemicals on there so it is
about managing that.
Mr. Feenstra. That is right.
Don, do you want to expand on that at all?
Mr. Cameron. Our toolbox is limited. We have had fewer
products to use that are effective, and as we said, it creates
resistance issues. We need to rotate chemistry. I feel that we
have great products in the wings ready to go, and we don't have
access to them.
Mr. Feenstra. I agree. I agree. It is frustrating.
Mr. Cameron. We need to get them out.
Mr. Feenstra. Yep. Now I want to talk about maximum residue
levels. This has always been a top issue when we start thinking
about health and safety and the global supply chains. When we
start looking at international trade, they always talk about
maximum residual levels and where it is at and where it needs
to be. Mr. Abbott, could you talk about the robust processes
that go into setting the maximum residual levels at the EPA?
How does this work, and why this is so important when it comes
to our export markets?
Mr. Abbott. I can just speak from experience. I am not an
expert in that field by any stretch of the imagination. But in
my career, I have had to deal with the MRLs, right? And
different countries have different levels, and different active
ingredients have different levels. And they are rigorously
followed, and it goes all the way down from the producer to the
co-packer, and it follows all the way through the supply chain.
Mr. Feenstra. Yes, it does. I mean, it is very well thought
through of where it goes, and I mean, it is all identified.
Yes, Don?
Mr. Cameron. We have certain products we grow that if they
are going to be exported to, let's say, Japan, we have
restrictions on products that we can put on the crop.
Mr. Feenstra. That is right.
Mr. Cameron. It kind of limits us. But we see that in
several of the different commodities we grow. The MRLs hold
back the use of certain products that we need.
Mr. Feenstra. Yep. I hear you. Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentlelady from the Buckeye State, Ms.
Brown, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For generations, farmers have fed and fueled this country,
all while navigating uncertainty from extreme weather and labor
shortages to market volatility. It is our job here in Congress
to ensure farmers have the full range of tools they need to
meet these challenges head on. One of the most important tools
in their toolbox has been pest control products. When used
safely, legally, and effectively, they protect our crops,
preserve yields, and secure our nation's food security. And
that is why we have a strong and science-driven regulatory
system, a system built on rigorous standards, not rhetoric, a
system founded in fact, not fear, and a system informed by
stakeholder input, not political agendas.
Unfortunately, that brings me to the Make America Healthy
Again movement, the MAHA report, released earlier this year by
the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and
Human Services. By USDA's own admission, farmers and other key
stakeholders did not have input when it came to this report.
The report contains broken citations, misleading claims, and
appears to cherry-pick data while ignoring the longstanding
science-based framework that governs crop protection tools.
Mr. Abbott, you noted in your testimony that the MAHA
Commission's report ``undermines trust in the regulatory
process by citing unverifiable sources; omitting key
stakeholder voices, including farmers, food producers, and
scientists; and making sweeping claims not grounded in the
science or structure of the current system.'' I agree. If we
are going to trust the science, we need to know that we are
operating from the same set of facts.
Moving forward, what would you like to see from the
commission to restore credibility and demonstrate that it is
engaging in an honest scientific process?
Mr. Abbott. I am assuming it is me you are talking to.
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Mr. Abbott. Okay. I would like to see that--once again, we
are founded in science-based. We all up here on this panel and
people we work for believe in the system, right, when it works.
We want to make sure that we are adequately funding, and I keep
hammering that because we are not adequately funding to get the
science that we need and the products out the door for the
tools for the farmers. So I really would say that we need to
make sure that we are founded in science and we continue to do
that. And I agree wholeheartedly with you, we don't want to
make this a political issue.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. The MAHA report also calls for more
research into health impacts of pesticides and other crop
protection tools. But at the same time, the President has
proposed a budget that poses significant cuts to agriculture
and public health research programs that are essential to
answering those very questions. How can we take the report's
call for more science seriously if this Administration seeks to
defund the very institutions needed to produce it?
So Mr. Witherbee, how important are Federal research
dollars to ensuring that our regulatory process remains
grounded in sound, up-to-date science?
Mr. Witherbee. Well, I think part of it, first of all, is
just making sure that you have the best scientists that are
part of that regulatory process reviewing these, that they are
up-to-date on modern technologies, that they have had a look at
this, and that they have the opportunity to quickly review and
understand the safety and the environmental impacts to some of
these new technologies, that alone.
And then, we have land-grant universities and folks that
are there to test some of these new properties. Part of it is
getting through the regulatory process in order to enable that
testing to be done. That also requires dollars to do some of
that testing at the universities. So funding part of that
research is vital to building up our scientific knowledge and
our understanding of some of these new technologies and how
quickly we can get them through some of those regulatory
resourcing in order to have the appropriate people in place to
allow these new technologies to get through in a timely manner
is important.
Ms. Brown. Thank you so much. Sound policy starts with
sound science, and that means trusting the facts. Please know
that I am committed to working with my colleagues to support
the next generation of crop protection tools grounded in
research and innovation so we can build a food supply that is
not just safe but more resilient and secure for the future.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. All right. I thank the gentlelady and now
recognize the gentleman from Alabama for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate all
the witnesses being here today.
Ronald Reagan had a saying. He said, ``The government's
idea on the economy is when it is moving, you tax it. If it
keeps moving, you regulate it. And if it fails, you subsidize
it.'' And very often we see regulations being a huge problem
and an inefficiency in government.
So with that, Mr. Abbott, you testified that more than $\1/
2\ billion worth of your members' products are currently
delayed in EPA's regulatory review process, products that
include both post-patent tools and adjuvants critical for crop
protection. Can you explain how this backlog is affecting
grower access to proven technologies and what consequences that
has on production efficiency and cost?
Mr. Abbott. Well, as I mentioned already before, it puts a
tremendous strain on the tools that are already out there,
right, so they need to have access to those tools from a
rotational purpose and to continue to apply the adjuvants that
are part of that tank mix as well, and they need to have timely
access to those as well.
Mr. Moore. Somebody mentioned earlier that there is just
like a chemical. It has already been approved, but somehow it
is still backlogging the process. Is that the case too as well?
I think one of the witnesses mentioned that earlier. Are you
all familiar with something that may have been approved that is
still being held up because it is in some sort of new
technology, anything like that? Maybe I misunderstood when I
heard that. But, yes, the regulatory environment is certainly
crippling, and we get that in business. I grew up on a row crop
farm.
Mr. Witherbee, the technology has changed dramatically. I
can remember standing in a peanut field.
Mr. Cameron, you may have seen one of these, an old span
sprayer, where the product was in the tank and you literally
just sprayed it out across the field. And so I think we were
spraying Bravo for leaf spot at the time, and I remember my dad
and uncle complaining about how expensive that stuff was. I
can't imagine what--they were always griping about cost and
farming, and we always are, right? But with inflation and the
restrictions now that government tends to put on production, it
is certainly harassing.
But, Mr. Witherbee, I am going to move to you for a second.
You mentioned that without updates to our regulatory system,
the U.S. risks falling behind in sustainable pest control
innovation. What would that mean for American growers and our
agricultural competitiveness if the technology like pgSIT were
delayed or even possibly adopted in competing markets, say, in
China, Brazil, or the EU?
Mr. Witherbee. I think that is the tough part is that we
already do see some of those technologies going to South
America and others because the regulatory environment moves a
little quicker and able to get those out in the fields, and so
you are allowed to do some testing there. So we are already
behind in some aspects. The other part of it is that those
innovations are stopping from getting to the growers, and the
growers, most of what we work on here is trying to make the
cost of doing--we know that our product has to be cheaper. That
is important to the growers. We also know it has to be safer.
So we are all working on safer, cheaper innovations that can go
out there to the grower. Unfortunately, they are just not
getting there because we can't get through that regulatory
process.
Mr. Moore. The regulatory process in the U.S., how does it
stack up compared to some of the other countries on timelines?
Mr. Witherbee. The timelines are a little longer. I think
the part is that it is hard to judge because there are certain
things that say there are timelines, and you do pay money into
going into those, but you often get delayed or there might be
not enough staff, and so you are kind of left to guess that you
are going to hit that timeline or not, and then there is
extensions. So it is unpredictable.
Mr. Moore. It probably takes a long time to just get an
extension, doesn't it?
Mr. Witherbee. Absolutely.
Mr. Moore. I can't imagine. So yes, when I was first out of
college, I worked with Elanco Animal Health, and I think it was
12 years then. If we found something that we thought might
work, the science behind it was pretty darn good. It would take
us 12 years to actually get that to the market. So I think that
is about the timeline you are looking at now. You say 12 years
possibly to get something. If you find something that might be
good for the growers, it takes maybe 12 years now. Is that kind
of the timeline for here in the U.S.?
Mr. Witherbee. Yes, it is from development through
registration into hands, about 12 years and about $300 million.
Mr. Moore. It is tough to cash-flow for 12 years, guys, if
you haven't got a product.
Go ahead, Mr. Cameron. I have about 40 seconds. I would
love to hear from you.
Mr. Cameron. I will talk quick.
Mr. Moore. Since you are from California, we want to hear
from you too.
Mr. Cameron. No, we see that Brazil is taking the lead in
biological use on farms, and their government has partnered
with the companies that are producing this to get the product
in the field to the growers. I am leaving Saturday to Brazil
for a week with the Secretary of Ag out of California. We are
going to see what they are up to.
Mr. Moore. It would be nice if government would come
alongside instead of riding on our backs sometimes, guys. I
appreciate it.
I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman, yielding back.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Kansas, Ms. Davids, for
5 minutes.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our
Ranking Member, Ms. Craig, for holding this hearing today.
Protecting the integrity of our agricultural supply chain
from pests and animal diseases is critical not just for our
economy but for our health and for our national security. From
the fields where farmers work hard to protect their crops to
the grocery store where Kansans are already stretching their
budgets to feed their families, we see just how deeply
interconnected food security and national security really are.
I know we have said it a lot of times in this Committee
that food security is national security. That is why
investments in agricultural research are so important. These
innovations help farmers and ranchers produce more. We have
heard this multiple times today. These innovations help farmers
and ranchers produce more, waste less, and improve the
nutrition and safety of the food that we eat.
In Kansas, innovation in agriculture means that our farmers
can feed the world while keeping costs down, something that
directly impacts families at the grocery store. And that is
especially important right now. Between 2020 and 2024, retail
food prices went up more than 23 percent. Families are feeling
those price increases acutely.
Mr. Witherbee, in your written testimony, you mentioned the
New World screwworm. Its continued spread could absolutely
severely impact our cattle producers and even pose risks to
humans. Can you talk a bit about how innovative tools to fight
pests like the screwworm can help protect our food supply and,
more broadly, the agriculture economy?
Mr. Witherbee. Yes. So in particular with New World
screwworm, one of the key pieces that we use to fight that is
sterile insect technique. It has been around for 60 years. It
is effective. But we haven't tried to improve upon that, and
that is what part of the technology changes there are. There
has been other groups that have developed lines that could cut
the cost of production, which, when we start to see a national
emergency, all of a sudden the costs are very significant. Part
of that is adoption of some of these newer technologies are not
just because they are effective, but they are also maybe
cheaper and a better manufacturing process to get to that.
Investment into some of those technologies that allow for
us to get to the same kind of control and the same kind of
agents but at a cheaper cost and at a quicker timeline are
important as well. And those are things that often go neglected
because it hasn't become a problem yet.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Just really quick, are those
competitors or the people who are coming up with this at a more
efficient cost, are those international companies or----
Mr. Witherbee. That is here in the U.S. too, and in most
cases we are stuck in the regulatory process or approval
process.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Okay.
Mr. Witherbee. Things like invasive species are tough
because it is tough to get permission to work on invasive
species in the U.S. as well. Obviously, they are not introduced
here, but it is one of the things we are worried about
protecting. So partnerships with the government, USDA, other
institutions are really important, and so part of that funding
is needed to allow for these private and public partnerships to
get these done, and not just to utilize old technologies but to
adopt some of these new technologies towards these problems.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Yes. Well, thank you. I am going to
switch gears. In addition to livestock, Kansas is a top wheat
producer. We grow about \1/5\ of all the U.S. wheat in our
state, and Kansas farmers deal with tough growing conditions.
And winter wheat, especially when used in sustainable
rotations, can offer serious soil health benefits. It does help
prevent erosion, conserve water, it moderates soil
temperatures, and suppresses weeds. Encouraging cover cropping
and conservation practices can strengthen the long-term health
of our soil.
Mr. Abbott, I was hoping to hear from you. I know your
testimony outlined some ways to help farmers adopt these types
of practices. Can you share a bit about how you think the
Federal Government can help support farmers in making those
transitions to those other practices?
Mr. Abbott. Well, just like the NRCS, recognizing adjuvants
and giving them credit for that. We have been in discussions
with them, and we could use your help to help push those
colleagues along because we want to get that point system and
give adequate credit to there. Now we are working with the
scientists, and our folks on the data side are supplying what
they are asking for. But really and truly, that is how we are
going to get to the next level on a conservation aspect.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you. And thank you to all of
our witnesses for taking time to be here with us.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
I now recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Finstad,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Finstad. Thank you, Chairman Thompson. I really
appreciate you holding this important hearing today, and thank
you to our witnesses for being here and for everything that you
do for the ag industry.
As a fourth-generation farmer from southern Minnesota, I
raise corn, soybeans, and kids, my seven kids, the fifth
generation, God willing, that will take over our farm someday.
I really appreciate hearing your testimony.
A couple thoughts that I have here really around innovation
and precision agriculture. As someone who has watched the
evolution of my family farm over generations, everything from
the moldboard plow to now we have the chisel plow, we have
areas near us with no-till, strip-till, and really we are
managing our farm at sub-inch accuracy with GPS technology.
And when you look at today's prices, when you have sub-$4
corn, sub-$10 beans, I don't think a lot of us are raising our
hands saying, ``Hey, I want to manage my farm to the dollars.
We are managing it to the pennies,'' and so we are not throwing
money away where we don't need to, and we are making sure that
we are putting what we need where we need it when we need it.
And the tools that you all and your industries provide us have
really helped us become much more efficient.
And if you look at with what I just said and the adoption
of precision agriculture technology and all the innovations,
American farmers have increased their production output by 175
percent, and we have done that while we are using fewer inputs,
including land, water, fertilizer, and other chemistries. And
so because of the constant work of farmers, who are the best
environmentalists in the world, bar none, because we are
managing our land to the sub-inch accuracy, we are in it for
generations, not for a one-shot ``make all the money and go
home,'' but I want to see my kids farm that land so I can't
abuse that soil.
And so with that, just a couple of questions in regards to
the industry and how we can continue to evolve and continue to,
again, acknowledge the fact that we are managing to the pennies
right now, not to the dollars. So for any of you that would
like to take this question, throughout the last several years,
each of your respective industries have made incredible strides
in adopting practices that are better for production and the
environment, from safe handling to drift-reduction agents.
Taking these crop protection tools off the shelves increased
costs, and it forces our producers to farm with essentially one
hand tied behind our back. And so can you speak to the steps
that your industries have taken to implement self-regulation
and the motives behind those decisions?
Mr. Abbott. I will go ahead and start. So we personally
were doing a lot of research and making sure that we know what
we know before we actually release the chemistries out there to
the public. And we do a lot of research behind the scenes and
work with companies and customers to get them exactly what they
need. And a lot of the customers that we service, you more than
likely buy from. So at the end of the day, we want to make sure
you have the viable tools at the most cost effectiveness that
we can provide you to.
Mr. Finstad. Anybody else want a shot at that?
Mr. Witherbee. Yes. I think in terms of safety, that is one
of the more important things we are dealing with, ensuring that
our products are safe. No one is going to use them if they
aren't safe. The other thing is that we are entrusting some of
these products. We are not doing these by ourselves. That is
why we utilize land-grant universities where the professors and
stuff are part of the community, are part of the neighborhood,
and part of that environment. And it is important that they are
able to provide testimony to the growers and the farmers in
terms of a product's integrity. And I think that is where all
of us try to get our products tested and looked at because it
is important to build that trust and also to understand the
voice of customer is always very important to us. We need to
understand, where does it need to be, safety? Where does it
need to be cost-wise? How can this be more effective? And we
want that feedback in order that we can put that into our
product development.
Mr. Cameron. In California, the growers last year supported
an increase in the mill tax\1\ or the tax paid on pesticides
with the express idea that we will get faster turnaround
through our Department of Pesticide Regulation to get new
products out quicker and get rid of the backlog. We have been
promised that that will happen, and I know it is already--they
have new people in place, so we are optimistic, and we support
our industry by doing that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Editor's note: A ``mill'' is equal to \1/10\ of 1 . Currently,
the ``mill assessment'' is 24.5 mills, or 2.45 per dollar of sales
(California AB 3112, 2023-2024) (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/
faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2113).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Finstad. I appreciate you being here today. I would
just close with saying we need more tools, not less. We need to
make sure we are not tying one hand behind our back to farm and
really appreciate you being here today.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Oregon,
Ms. Salinas, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, and thank you to
Ranking Member Craig for holding today's hearing, and thank you
to our witnesses for your participation today.
I am really proud to represent a district that is home to
countless specialty crops, some of the finest wine grapes in
the world. The vast majority of this country's hazelnuts and a
really impressive variety of berries are all in the Willamette
Valley. And when I meet with these producers, I hear about the
unique challenges specialty crop producers face and how they
sometimes feel left behind by a Federal Government that really
focuses a lot of times on large commodity crops. And that is
why these producers really make the absolute most out of the
specialty crop-specific programs that do exist.
Take the IR-4 Project, for instance. The crop protection
industry focuses much of their efforts on major crops that
provide the best return on investment, and that makes sense for
their business. This leaves specialty crop producers, though,
whose crops may not be compatible with traditional pest control
methods, with fewer options to protect their livelihoods. IR-4
fills this gap by using Federal funding to develop specialty
crop-specific crop protection methods, which may not have been
otherwise discovered or pursued.
Mr. Cameron, this question is for you. I appreciated that
in your testimony you acknowledged the importance of the IR-4
Project and maintaining an emphasis on specialty crop-specific
needs. Could you expand a bit on the importance of IR-4 and
explain how increasing funding for it will benefit farmers?
Mr. Cameron. I would be happy to. Thank you. The IR-4
Project does work for specialty crops. We need more funding. We
know that many times we don't have the tools we need for the
crops that we grow.
A good friend of mine started growing agave. There is
absolutely nothing labeled for agave in the United States. We
grew guayule many years ago for seed production. It is a latex
plant that people don't get allergic to, absolutely nothing. So
we know that if California produces half of the fresh fruits
and vegetables in the United States that we need carve-outs. We
need support for our specialty crops.
It is a very difficult scenario, as you say, because many
of the crop protection chemicals are developed for the large
commodity crops throughout the U.S., and we do get left behind.
We would love to see specialty crop block grant money coming to
California so that can be used to further products that will be
used within the state.
So the IR-4 Project we feel is excellent. The FAR program
is also very good to get additional testing for crops, and that
is through the farm bill. But we definitely get left behind
many times in agriculture when we do have a heavy lift and
produce abundant crops throughout the state for the nation.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And can you expand a bit on the
importance of reestablishing IR-4 and EPA's collaboration on
their Biopesticide Demonstration Grant Program?
Mr. Cameron. Right. The Biopesticide Demonstration Grant
Program was an older program. It had been left behind. We feel
that that would be critical for getting products out in the
field, giving growers confidence to be able to use these types
of products and experience.
Currently, growers are reluctant. Our margins are so thin
that it is difficult to take the risk on trying new products.
If we lose a crop, we could be out of business----
Ms. Salinas. That is right. Thank you.
All right. And this is for all of our witnesses. I am sure
you are likely aware, last Friday, the Trump Administration
took the dramatic step of closing EPA's Office of Research and
Development. This is the latest instance of a seemingly
unending string of actions by this Administration that
undermines scientific research and America's role as the global
innovator. They fired scientists at the Agricultural Research
Service, the National Institutes of Science and Technology.
They have cut climate research across multiple agencies, and
they have even attacked the National Institutes of Health. It
is clear that this Administration does not see the value in
investing in science and innovation right now. So I think it is
incumbent on Congress to ensure the United States maintains
these investments and our global competitiveness at the same
time.
So again, for panelists who would like to answer, I would
like to hear from you specific areas of investment that
Congress should emphasize in the crop protection space. And
where is Congress under-investing?
Mr. Abbott. Well, I think we need to invest in newer
innovation, new technology, right? We have heard that time and
time again today, and I think that is where we are going to
grow, and the farmers are going to get the tools that they
need. So we could use your support in that, continued support,
and it is back to we need the Appropriations Committee to
release those funds.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And I am out of time. I yield back.
Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and all
you witnesses. I know it takes time out of your day, but we
appreciate you being here.
So I am going to start with you, Mr. Abbott, but I may have
any of you that I may want to ask questions. But in your
testimony, you mentioned that the EPA is integrating the ESA
consultation into the pesticide registration decisions. That
kind of bothers me when I think about some of the species that
are listed on the ESA and the complications that causes in
terms of moving forward. But you suggest that there may be a
better way. So my question is, can you elaborate on that better
way of doing that than what they are proposing?
Mr. Abbott. Well, I don't think we are going to change
their mind. That train has left the station. But what we can
do, and it wasn't until we had discussions with the EPA to even
get adjuvants as a part of the mitigation. That was several
conversations over several days, months, weeks. And we wanted
to make sure that we got a seat at the table if you will. I
think to quote Chairman Thompson, ``If you don't have a seat at
the table, you are on the menu,'' right, more than likely. So
we wanted to make sure that we had a seat at the table and that
we could actually give the viable tools that will help manage
those buffers because we are not going to change the minds of
what species are on there. That is a whole different
department. And they have done their research. They have
different segments. I have seen different maps of it. But what
we can do is advocate for reduction of buffers through the use
of adjuvants.
Mr. Baird. Well, I certainly appreciate your perspective
there. It is concerning to me that we don't ever take any of
the species off of the endangered species list, and that kind
of can impact whatever we are doing in agriculture with FIFRA
and all of those issues. So I think we definitely need to keep
an eye on what they are doing with the ESA and how putting that
in with the EPA is concerning to me.
So does anyone else have a comment about the ESA and the
EPA program, the pilot program? No?
Well, if not, Dr. Wyant, I want to have you comment about--
Representative Panetta and I introduced the Plant Biostimulant
Act, and that is kind of important to hear that you support
that idea, as well as really I think it fosters innovation. But
my question is what do you think the view is of biostimulants?
They are different than insecticides, pesticides, and that sort
of thing. So what do you think the view is, and what do you
think we can do about the regulatory confusion in that arena?
Dr. Wyant. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, I think with
biostimulants we need to recognize that it is a diverse set of
substances, humic acid, seaweeds. There is a long list of what
can be called a biostimulant. And we need to recognize the
diversity of the modes of action, how they influence the soil,
how they influence the plant. And I think with the Biostimulant
Act, defining what a biostimulant is at the Federal level would
be a great start because it could start to set up the
environment where we are working with some known parameters.
And I think that is where there is viewpoints in the industry
of what is a biostimulant. Some of them are very well
researched and have good claims and good performance, and some
don't have those properties. So I think that the consumer, the
grower, is the one that has been having to shoulder some of
that burden of trying things in the field. And if we could
tighten up that definition, that would be certainly helpful.
I think recognizing biostimulants as not being pesticides
or insecticides or herbicides is also a great start because we
need that innovative edge. We need that diverse set of
substances that allows us to manage for other things, abiotic
stress, it is too hot, it is too cold, maybe the soil is a
little bit salty or overly wet, these new management tools we
have that are not necessarily maybe moving forward as fast as
they should because of that uncertainty. Thank you.
Mr. Baird. And these tend to be natural processes, and so
they really interact with the living organisms that we have in
that soil to stimulate growth or stimulate plants or whatever,
so thank you very much. I am sorry I am out of time because I
would like to ask the rest of you more questions, but thank
you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Hawaii, Congresswoman
Tokuda, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to build on the question that Representative Salinas
started with in terms of the recent announcement of the
elimination of the EPA's Office of Research and Development. Do
you feel that the work that ORD has been doing since, I
believe, 1979 in terms of protecting human and environmental
health research, technical assistance to Tribes, states, local
governments, data collections, dashboards, do you think all of
the work that they did was, in fact, important? Just a simple
yes or no from the members of the panel. I need a verbal. Do
you think that EPA's ORD was important? Did they provide value?
Mr. Cameron. Definitely.
Ms. Tokuda. It is not a hard question. Yes or no?
Mr. Abbott. Yes.
Mr. Witherbee. Yes.
Dr. Wyant. I will pass on that. I am here for
biostimulants.
Ms. Tokuda. Okay. You will pass on that.
So right now, we are looking at the complete elimination of
the office, reduction of staff that they are looking to do. We
have already lost thousands of EPA staff since the beginning of
this year. They are looking at a 23 percent reduction. You have
talked about the need for more technical assistance. You have
talked about the need for research. You have talked about the
fact that there is a backlog in the regulatory process. Do you
believe that eliminating now staff, professional staff,
researchers, scientists, individuals who have dedicated their
life's work towards this mission is, in fact, a good thing?
Now, from what I understand, the Trump Administration plans
to create a new Office of Applied Science and Environmental
Solutions. A few of the staff from ORD have been migrated over.
Given this basically political reorganization, do you not think
it, in fact, points to what Representative McGovern was talking
about earlier, that all this is a shell game to try to
deregulate, reduce oversight and transparency, eliminate data
collection, research, all to speed this process up but, in
fact, reduce protections for human health by getting rid of the
Office of Research and Development and all of the science and
the work that has come with it over the last few decades? Could
there not be a case made for that, given what we are seeing is
just a political shell game and a reduction right now in
elimination of research and protections, data collections,
dashboards, technical assistance that have gone to states?
Mr. Abbott. I am not versed enough to comment on that, so I
will pass.
Ms. Tokuda. Anyone want to comment on this? Does anyone
have any confidence that this new Office of Applied Science and
Environmental Protection will, in fact, protect human
environmental health while also seeking, as they say, to
deregulate the process?
Mr. Witherbee. Not enough information to really understand
that.
Ms. Tokuda. So do I have some agreement that the
elimination overall of ORD is, in fact, a bad decision by this
Administration? Do you feel somehow the elimination of ORD
will, in fact, help to deregulate the process and speed up
introducing, whether it is pesticides, biostimulants, adjuvants
into the system? How do you think it will help your industries
and your members, eliminating ORD? Do you think it will?
Mr. Witherbee. I don't know one way or the other, but I
know what we were working with before wasn't getting through
either. So elimination of roles that are tied to the science
and providing answers is tough, and so I am looking at no
matter what gets put in place, hopefully, it is something that
is skilled, looks at the science, can make decisions, and can
move them forward so that we can get some of these new
solutions to growers.
Ms. Tokuda. So right now, they are getting rid of the
scientists in ORD. They are getting rid of what was literally
the EPA's scientific backbone. I don't see how this is a good
thing.
And again, to point to the skepticism that was brought
forward by Representative McGovern earlier, it does point, in
fact, to a political shell game that seeks to simply deregulate
the process, to reduce transparency and oversight in data that
ultimately will undermine human and environmental health and
transparency.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Mann, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing, and thank you all for being here today.
I represent the Big First District of Kansas, approximately
60 rural counties in the mostly western and central part of
Kansas.
Farmers, ranchers, and ag producers are the original
conservationists. Their livelihoods always depend on the health
and sustainability of the land that they work, knowing that
stewardship today ensures productivity tomorrow. Technological
advances have been helping farmers improve crop yields in
Kansas for decades, and they continue to rely on evolving tools
and techniques to secure the food supply and reduce losses
caused by pests, disease, and extreme weather.
As these challenges continue to evolve, it is essential
that our farmers, ranchers, and producers have access to the
tools and innovations necessary to ensure a successful crop
today and for many seasons to come so they can do what they do
best, which we all know is to feed, fuel, and clothe the world.
Farming practices such as no-till in Kansas have been used for
many, many years as our farmers work to sustain good soil
health, but they have to have the tools to be able to do that.
So just a handful of questions, first for you, Mr. Abbott.
In your testimony, you mentioned that the U.S. has the most
scientifically rigorous and transparent pesticide regulatory
system in the world. Could you further explain what specific
features or processes that make the U.S. system stand out
compared to other countries?
Mr. Abbott. Well, first, the rigorous testing that goes
through and the submission and the review process. You go to
different countries--and I can't speak for every country. I
know PRIA, it seems like it takes--excuse me, not PRIA, but
PMRA (Pest Management Regulatory Agency) up in Canada, it will
take years and several millions and millions of dollars to get
things registered there.
You have heard our frustration on the backlog, right? That
is real, but it is not the first time we have seen backlog. It
has just never been to this degree. So I would say we really
have one of the gold standards if you will. It is just a matter
of adequately funding the staffing there to get things through.
Mr. Mann. Yes, that makes sense. In an area of growing
concern amongst producers all over Kansas is growing resistance
to current crop protection tools, which can reduce their
efficacy and create vulnerabilities to damage.
Again, for you, Mr. Abbott, can you speak to the role that
adjuvants and inert ingredients play in reducing the risk of
weed resistance to provide growers with long-term success in
managing?
Mr. Abbott. And I will speak for the inerts first, right?
The inerts are part of the pesticide package, right? That is
what helps them work together, commingle together. If you are
putting different chemistries together, they don't always like
to play nice together. It is how do you get those to where they
are actually going to stay in stable form and where you can
actually use them on the crop.
The adjuvants are going to help influence the tank mix to a
degree that you are going to see an improvement between 15
percent and even as high as 30 percent increase in efficacy
versus the pesticide by itself, so it is about getting it into
the leaf penetration, spreading across the leaf, and actually
keeping the spray on the crop itself that you are spraying.
Mr. Mann. All of which we need to quickly approve as new
technology is coming out to give our producers the tools they
need to sustainably farm.
Mr. Abbott. Absolutely.
Mr. Mann. And we also have to remember that at the core of
sustainability is profitability. And for our ag producers, if
it is not profitable, it will not be sustainable.
Last question for you, Mr. Witherbee. Agragene's technology
represents an exciting development in pest control that can
grow a producer's toolbox of options. As we look toward
resilient farming systems, can you discuss how your technology
can be integrated with other proven crop protection tools to
enhance integrated pest management strategies?
Mr. Witherbee. Yes, I think we all know by now that there
is no real silver bullet, so the more tools that you can have
so that you can do rotations, so that you can apply different
chemistries or different products, et cetera, gives the growers
different opportunities to do this. And particularly with
changes in climate, changes in the way pests are active, they
need these other tools and other options, mechanisms of
actions, in order to really fight and protect their crop and
protect their current season.
So just having more tools in the toolbox and then having,
as we have all learned, the growers are the smartest people out
there. They know how to take care of their crops and to bring
it to market. They will find ways at the right times to apply
them and to get them in order to maximize yield and to
hopefully maximize their profits as well.
Mr. Mann. That is right. Well, thank you all again for
being here.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Davis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you so much, Mr.
Chairman, and our Ranking Member. Thanks to all the witnesses
who are here today.
The Interregional Research Project No. 4, known as the IR-4
Project, ensures specialty crop farmers have legal access to
safe and effective crop protection products. The IR-4 Project
is housed at North Carolina State University, just outside of
North Carolina's 1st District. In eastern North Carolina, the
IR-4 Project is essential for our sweet potato farmers in
particular.
And my question is for any of the witnesses that could
address this. Could you speak on the importance of the IR-4
Project for specialty crop farmers and how it actually
interacts with pesticides specifically?
Mr. Cameron. Yes, we believe the IR-4 Project has been a
very effective program within California for specialty crops in
getting essentially minor registration or registration of
traditional chemistry into the specialty crop side of
California agriculture. Without that, you leave crops totally
uncovered, unprotected when you have viable products that are
available and could be used on that crop. So it has been a good
entry point to move other products into the specialty crops
that are similar in growth habits or in consumption. So we
support it. We support more money for that program and really
would love to see expansion.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you. When I speak to
farmers back home, they talk about the importance of access to
different crop inputs as protection tools. Without them, their
crops face various threats and potential financial losses. The
loss of access to those inputs poses an immediate threat to our
ability to feed the American people and the world.
Dr. Wyant, can you speak about what some of these crop
inputs are and what they provide to farmers?
Dr. Wyant. Sure. Thank you, Congressman. So from the
nutrition side, we have fertilizers, and they are long-proven
tools to help improve crop growth and crop yield. We have
nitrogen, phosphate, potassium, and sulfur, your main four that
growers use all over the world to help improve their crop at
the end of the season, so we have that major class of inputs.
We also have the crop protection inputs that my colleagues on
the panel could answer questions about. So those are your two
major inputs. We also are fortunate to have a good input of
sunshine. That is one of your key ingredients. And, of course,
water either from irrigation or in the soil from rainfall.
So the new innovative piece for crop inputs is certainly
these biostimulants, so living and non-living products that
really can help us manage other things. So we have figured out
the pest control. We have figured out nutrition. Now we can
start to manage new things like the abiotic stress, nighttime
temperatures, compacted soils, things like that, and I think
that is where the exciting new spaces for growers is being able
to turn to those tools and manage things that in the past have
been very, very challenging. Thank you.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Mr. Witherbee, how important
is technological innovation in the agriculture industry, and
what specifically do new technologies provide farmers? If you
could just speak on that.
Mr. Witherbee. Yes. I think, as things have changed in
terms of environment, the different pest pressures, invasive
species, other things, that technology allows us to attack some
of these in different ways. In particular, as much as we have
talked about it, it costs a lot of money in order to bring a
new active ingredient through. Particularly with a lot of the
crops we are talking about too, these are ones that a broad
acre application just isn't going to work for necessarily. It
does for corn and soy and other things like that, but now when
we get into specialty crops, there are certain things that--
weeds are special. Pests are special. They all require
different things, and it is not just going to be broad-based
that does it. So new innovations are going to be important to
bring in order to fight some of these newer pests and some of
these newer problems that are being created.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you again to the panel,
our witnesses, and I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman, yielding back.
I recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Congresswoman
Miller, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
panel for being here today to discuss these important topics.
And like Representative Finstad, I also am a fourth-
generation farmer with my husband in central Illinois. We raise
corn, cattle, and kids. We also have seven children. And we are
conservation farmers. And I understand the challenges that the
family farm faces between being able to pay the bills and
afford this great new technology that is on the scene.
So, as you know, Illinois is one of the top producers of
corn and soybeans in the country, so this is a topic that hits
home closely. Illinois farmers have long been leaders in
adopting cutting-edge technologies from precision agriculture
to advanced seed genetics. This is all to increase productivity
and to help feed our nation. But as we look ahead, our
producers are also facing real challenges, including regulatory
delays, input costs, and concerns over access to innovation. As
we consider the next farm bill and other legislative efforts,
we need to ensure that Illinois farmers and others across the
country have the tools and the freedom to innovate, compete,
and succeed.
And it is kind of interesting because this month we are
going to be having the Farm Progress Show in Decatur, Illinois.
And it is always a big deal for our family, and families show
up. Family farmers show up and kind of drool over the equipment
that they can't afford.
So as many farmers in my district continue to face tight
margins, what steps can we take to ensure that innovations in
crop production are cost-effective and scalable, especially for
family farms?
Mr. Cameron. I will take a stab at that. We have looked at
a lot of innovations on-farm from laser weeders to really
highly precise weeders that will actually spray a minute amount
of herbicide on a weed and leave the rest of the crop alone,
but they come with a hefty price. We are talking $750,000 to
$1.5 million, and for the average grower, that is way out of
reach. Maybe in the long run it can save money, but technology
is expensive.
I would love to see maybe a program through NRCS where
there could be some help in funding new technology on-farm. Get
the money directly to the growers. They know what to do with
it. They know what they need. I think that is a good way to
advance technology on-farm and to improve the ag economy.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
And Mr. Abbott, Illinois is home to world-class ag research
institutions. How can we better leverage land-grant
universities and public-private partnerships to accelerate the
real-world adoption of future crop innovations?
Mr. Abbott. Well, I can speak right now from companies I
formerly have worked for and the company I work for today. We
actually do leverage that relationship. We work with contract
research organizations. We also work with the different
academics throughout not only Illinois, but we work with Texas
A&M. You go down the list, there are several of them out there
that offer good programs. And we partner with them so we can
get good data back. And, I mean, sometimes good data, it
doesn't work, so then you know exactly where you stand and you
move on.
Mrs. Miller. Well, thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for coming.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
Staying with that Illinois theme, I recognize Mr. Sorensen
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our Ranking
Member.
Agriculture in America today is being stressed from all
different directions. New invasive pests are spreading from pen
to pen and field to field. New weather patterns are developing,
causing more frequent derechos, flash flooding. And as of
today, the University of Nebraska reports nearly half of our
country is experiencing drought conditions. Point being, we
need smarter, safer solutions.
Illinois farmers, as the Congresswoman had mentioned, we
are some of the best in the world when it comes to increasing
production and being resilient in the face of adversity. Our
job on this Committee is to make sure that operations can be
passed on to the next generation. We must give our farmers the
tools that they need to succeed.
I believe innovation is how we make the biggest move
forward. We can use biologicals to lower inputs needed to deter
pests, and microbes can help us grow crops. In my district, the
beacon of innovation is the Department of Agriculture's
National Center for Agriculture Utilization Research. But those
of us in the heart of Illinois, we know it as the Peoria Ag
Lab. Famous for discovering the method to mass produce
penicillin, the ag lab continues to be at the forefront in
developing value-added agricultural products and has been for
nearly 80 years.
A key area of the lab's work focuses on enhancing crop
resilience. Scientists there have developed a natural pest
control from a byproduct of mustard seed and also found red
cedar plant compounds that help predatory ladybird beetles.
Innovation allows us to control crop pests naturally.
And there is even more research that goes way above my hat.
From precision agriculture to increasing soil quality,
providing resilience, the problem here is this. The path from
laboratory to farm field, it remains too long and too
uncertain. And it is not just creating innovation, it is
scaling up, it is meeting standards, it is earning producer
trust, and it is building supply chains. That requires
investment, and it requires bipartisan agreement that we still
want to make sure that farmers have access to the tools that
they need to succeed.
Mr. Cameron, we will begin with you. I have heard stories
where something so simple as failing to specify how to properly
apply biologicals to crops actually lowered the effectiveness.
Ultimately, it wasted the farmer's time and money. In your
testimony, you made a couple of suggestions, such as creating
incentives and providing technical guidance. Could you
elaborate on this? And are there specific products that you
have seen adopted that farmers were initially wary of but then
they came around to it? And how do we help identify new uses
for biologicals?
Mr. Cameron. I understand that biologicals are new for many
growers. Their margins, as you know, are thin. They are
reluctant to take the chance on a new product, especially when
we talk about biologicals that may require special application,
special handling, maybe a combination of several biologicals to
make the products function synergistically to be effective.
We know that there are actually not many people out there
that really have the knowledge for that, the training to be
able to articulate that to the growers at the level that they
will want to try and understand. We have been working with
trying new products on our farm. We are constantly doing our
own trials.
Mr. Sorensen. It is trial and error, right?
Mr. Cameron. Yes. We sometimes think we are a research
station, but we know that if we don't do it, we are going to be
left behind and----
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you. Thank you for that.
Mr. Cameron. Yes.
Mr. Sorensen. I appreciate that. I want to get to Mr.
Witherbee. As a scientist myself, I am always concerned with
the increasing anti-science rhetoric around the country, and it
gets politicized, and it is terrible, honestly. We have seen it
in campaigns around GMOs and corn syrup, and now consumers are
becoming skittish when they hear gene editing. I have 30
seconds left. How can companies like Agragene and the
government more effectively communicate the safety of new
technologies?
Mr. Witherbee. Well, part of it is financing the science
and being supportive of the science, particularly if it is the
U.S. science, right? And it is in our nation's interest. So
part of it is going back to more of a fact-based approach of
this is the facts we have tested. We have put it out in our
land-grant universities. We have had some of our best
scientists test this, and here are the proven facts about this,
not the hearsay. And I think it is important to get back to the
facts and to then make sure that that is being represented to
the growers that then get the opportunity to try some of these
tools.
As I said, some of them will work, some won't, but part of
it is trying to find that out. And doing that early through
trusted people like what we have in terms of our scientists and
folks at land-grant universities is very important.
Mr. Sorensen. Couldn't agree more. Thank you so much to our
panel.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Wied, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Wied. Mr. Cameron, you grow both organic and
conventional crops. Could you further explain what your
experience has been with crop protection tools with both of the
production styles?
Mr. Cameron. We find a very limited selection of crop
protection tools for organic that actually do the job. We
talked earlier about working with one hand tied behind your
back. That is how it feels many times. We have been able to get
good at it. We have been able to hit windows that we don't have
the pest pressure possibly. Weeds are always an issue. We spend
a lot of money there, but we are very limited. There really
haven't been a lot of new products coming into the organic
market that are very effective. We are hopeful that there will
be with additional biologicals hitting the scene in the future.
Conventional products, we are just not getting a lot of new
products to use, and that means we are using older products,
older chemistry. We have to worry about resistance developing.
We are extremely careful about rotation of our chemistry when
we do make applications, and we are just trying to find ways to
do things better and lower our cost.
Mr. Wied. Thank you. So in recent months and years, there
has been a much larger and louder conversation to get Americans
to be healthier and make healthier decisions regarding their
food. How do you think these crop protection tools play a role
in increasing American-sourced healthy foods?
Mr. Cameron. I believe that, when I started farming, we
used very tough materials that would kill everything in the
field. We are now using targeted materials that kill only the
insect that is being the problem, leaving the rest of the
field, the beneficial insects, to help continue attacking the
ones that do come back.
I think the food we produce is extremely healthy. We have
become very good. Our production has gone up. The genetics have
improved immensely in the crops that we do grow, but farming is
a difficult operation.
Mr. Wied. So on that, what driving factors do you use to
determine which protection tools you use for your conventional
crops versus your organic crops?
Mr. Cameron. I will start with the organic because that is
very limited. But we do spray our organic crops. We definitely
do put crop protection materials on that, but we are very
selective. We use coppers, sulfurs. There are natural
pyrethroid available that doesn't have the same strength. We
rarely use it. It doesn't work great, but in dire situations,
we will try it.
We try to have a lot of diversity on our farm. We find that
beneficial insects will switch from field to field and actually
keep some of the populations down not only in organic but in
conventional. We have learned a lot of things in organic
production we use in conventional and vice versa. But we are
running low on products that we can use in organic and
conventional farming. We just see the backlog. It affects us
directly.
Mr. Wied. So last, I understand the crop protection options
for specialty crops are fairly limited compared to those more
traditional row crops we talk about more frequently. How has
that impacted your business?
Mr. Cameron. We tend to tolerate more possible insect
damage if we don't have the product or a product that is
registered on the crop that we are growing. We may lose yield,
definitely. We typically see a lower yield in organic crops
versus conventional. We grow both side by side. Well, not side
by side, but on the same farm. Typically, we definitely have a
yield loss when we don't have the crop protection chemicals.
Mr. Wied. Great. Well, thank you all for being here today.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms.
Budzinski, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Budzinski. [inaudible] Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay.
I was thanking our Chairman for hosting this and also just
wanted to say thank you to the witnesses for traveling to be a
part of this discussion.
The conversation around innovations in crop production is
something that is very timely. We have all heard from farmers
in our districts, mine certainly, about the challenges of
rising input costs and the difficult decisions that they must
make to improve productivity but reduce costs at the farm. My
district is home to over 1 million acres of farmland, and while
much of it is corn and soybeans, we are also the home to a
variety of specialty crops. I often like to remind people I
represent Collinsville, which is the world capital of
horseradish production.
But in central and southern Illinois, the ag industry is
not just farms. We are also home to incredible agricultural
research at the University of Illinois but also Southern
Illinois University in Edwardsville. We are the home of
corporate facilities like ADM's North American headquarters in
Decatur, along with other ag manufacturers like Premiant and
facilities for some of the biggest names in ag across the
district, including Nutrien in Champaign, Illinois.
My district is, in many ways, leading in that next horizon
of agriculture, be it in producing inputs, creating new markets
through biomanufacturing. I also like to say I represent
Silicorn Valley, a corny joke for everyone, or even the
integration of AI into farming operations. The University of
Illinois is the home of AIFARMS (Artificial Intelligence for
Future Agricultural Resilience, Management, and
Sustainability).
I enjoy each of your testimonies about the role that you
are playing in ag innovation and the importance of a regulatory
system that works for producers and growers. But I also want to
underscore the importance of how these innovations can come to
be in the first place. I have been a serious advocate for
agricultural research since I joined Congress. And as a part of
that, I frequently talk about the importance of public-private
partnerships and the role that these partnerships can play in
ushering in the agriculture of the future.
So I would ask, actually, each of the panelists, our
witnesses, can each of you speak to the importance of Congress
funding public agricultural and environmental research,
especially as we work toward new horizons in ag and pest
control innovations? And maybe we could start with you, Mr.
Witherbee.
Mr. Witherbee. Yes, no. And part of it is, for sure, as I
had mentioned before, part of Agragene came out of BioSTL or
BioGenerator, which is basically building on technologies and
supporting early development. Part of that is important. And
then we use strong linkages with the University of Missouri,
Danforth Center, other institutions in order to do the testing
to get some of the products and to get some of the talent as
well. And so I think it is important those relationships
continue. A lot of that is via funding that comes into those
organizations to help with supporting kind of the next
generation of innovators, entrepreneurs, or just developers,
and so I think it is very important.
Ms. Budzinski. Great.
Dr. Wyant. Thank you for your joke. I might steal it from
you. And thank you for mentioning Nutrien's Innovation Farm in
Champaign, a fantastic facility for showing growers and
customers what is next.
I think for your question about what Congress can be doing
is just taking those steps to make sure that those tools are in
the toolbox, that whatever challenge we have coming down the
pipeline is growers have something they can reach into readily
and take care of it.
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you.
Mr. Abbott. And I will talk about investing in the land-
grant universities and just the students themselves, right? We
are seeing a lot of decrease of ag students coming out of the
universities. And if you look here, a lot of gray hair up here.
We need people to replace us as we move on, right? So I would
really like to see Congress help push that initiative and get
the funding that we need to succeed.
Ms. Budzinski. That is a great point, yes.
Mr. Cameron. Yes, I have a lot of gray hair. Hopefully, I
will keep it for a little while longer.
But, no, we definitely need money for research in ag. I
think without research, we don't have a future. There is
absolutely no question about that. The new technology is coming
at a rapid pace. And, growers have a lot of issues on their
plate, and this is a very important one. It is one of our basic
needs that we have to have. Research is the backbone of
agriculture, and if we don't have that, we are not going to
have a future. And we do need young people to get into ag, no
question.
Ms. Budzinski. Great. Thank you. Well, you have a partner
in me in that work and advocating for that funding. It is
really critically important.
Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
I now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Messmer,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for all the
witnesses today.
Hoosier farmers are increasingly productive. Between 2020
and 2023, net farm income grew by more than 60 percent, even
though active farm acres declined. While much of this
productivity is due to expertise of growing, some of it is of
the efficiency. Some can be attributed to new farm tech. My
district is at the forefront of the next generation of crop
protection chemistries, but before ag innovators can bring a
product to market, they must grapple with the threat of IP
theft.
Mr. Abbott, can you speak to how IP theft impacts the
decisions you make at Adjuvants Unlimited?
Mr. Abbott. We take that very seriously, right? We want to
say--and the proprietary nature of our business here is--
because a lot of the adjuvants are not patent-protected as crop
protection is, so we need to make sure that we keep that
confidential and secure.
Mr. Messmer. Okay. Thank you. The USDA identified
cybersecurity as a primary threat to our national farm
security. Mr. Abbott, how can Congress partner with businesses
like Adjuvants Unlimited to bolster IP protections through
cybersecurity enhancements?
Mr. Abbott. I would say, wherever you can fund it, I would
support that.
Mr. Messmer. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Cameron, I appreciate your comments about the
pragmatism of the American farmer. The producers who have
survived the last several years of razor-thin margins are among
the most efficient, innovative, and hardest-working individuals
out there. They are not wasting expensive chemicals on
irresponsible application.
Mr. Cameron, for the purpose of shedding light on a part of
farming that is often misunderstood, can you quantify how much
pesticide is applied on an acre of your conventional crops?
Mr. Cameron. Can I quantify the amount of pesticide used?
Mr. Messmer. Yes.
Mr. Cameron. We grow a very diverse number of crops on our
operation, and I think years ago we used to spray on a much
more frequent basis, maybe a calendar basis. We use integrated
pest management on all of our crops. We scout. We have
companies that actually come do pest control work on our farm,
check our field, but we also check behind them. I always say
the best footprints are your own to be on your farm. We need to
be out in the field looking at our own fields.
But as far as quantifying, we grow over 2,000 acres of
processing tomatoes. We may put one product on sulfur, very
common for disease and insect protection. And then we may later
in the season put one spray on for worms to keep them from
getting into the tomatoes.
But, I look back on how we used to farm. We used to spend
more money. Our products cost more, but they are more specific
and they are more effective.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you. The National Corn Growers
Association compares the amount of glyphosate applied to an
acre of farmland to that of a large cup of coffee being spread
evenly around a football field. But in the real world the
absence of this coffee cup's worth of protecting would lead to
large crop losses and eradicate the use of soil health
practices like no-till, so they are very important.
FIFRA keeps our producers, consumers, and environment safe,
but the process is incredibly slow and needs improvement. Mr.
Abbott, you mentioned that $\1/2\ billion in CPDA products are
currently tied up in EPA reviews. How challenging is it for a
small biotech innovator to wait out these EPA delays?
Mr. Abbott. Very costly. I don't know the exact dollar
amount, but I do know the longer they wait every day is lost
revenue, and not only for the small startup companies, but also
for the farmers as well because it is back to needing
additional tools out there to be successful.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you. In holding up pesticide reviews,
the Biden Administration forced small businesses to shoulder a
heavy expense. I am encouraged by the steps the current
Administration is taking to right these wrongs, and I look
forward to working with them to ensure affordable access to
critical inputs for Hoosier farmers.
With that, I thank you all for sharing today. And, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from New York,
Mr. Riley, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Riley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the
witnesses for being here today.
I represent a rural district in upstate New York. I
actually grew up just a few blocks away from The Cider Mill,
and one says The Cider Mill, not a cider mill. Folks in Broome
County understand that. Every kid has a field trip at some
point where you go to The Cider Mill. My wife, she is a
Virginian, and the first time I brought her home to meet my
parents, our first hometown date, I took her to The Cider Mill
so she could see how the apples are crushed and we got some
donuts, which may or may not be why she ended up marrying me in
the long run.
But I raise all that because apples upstate, it is a big
driver of our economy, but it is also a really important part
of our culture. It is a really important part of our community.
But I don't think, or at least I wonder sometimes whether
Congress is doing enough to support our apple growers. Unlike
row crops, specialty crops typically don't have the same level
of access to crop insurance and to other safety net programs.
And I have heard from a lot of our apple growers across upstate
New York that that leaves these producers especially vulnerable
when you have invasive pests or emerging diseases or shifting
climate conditions end up hitting their fields. And sometimes
when it comes to research dollars, our specialty crop growers
are sort of an afterthought, despite the fact that they
probably need the help the most, given that a lot of the
challenges they face are crop-specific or region-specific and
therefore require targeted, science-based solutions.
And so, Mr. Cameron, I was just hoping you could speak
generally and share your perspective as a specialty crop
producer. What are the handful of Federal programs that could
be improved when it comes to pest management and research and
mitigation tools for specialty crops? How should we be thinking
about crop insurance and just generally as somebody who cares a
lot about the apple industry and specialty crops generally,
things that we should be focused on here in the Agriculture
Committee?
Mr. Cameron. Well, we know that the IR-4 Project has been a
great boon to specialty crop growers, getting new chemistry
into the hands of specialty crop growers, so that is number
one. The FAR program that actually does testing and brings
other products on farm for testing, very important. Specialty
Crop Block Grants have been critical for getting projects
within states and getting new products, new technology on board
in specialty crop areas.
As far as insurance, you are right. Many times specialty
crops are left behind. They are difficult to get insured. You
go through maybe the--I can't think of the term, but for NRCS,
their program for non-insured crops. It is a difficult process.
It is not easy. I usually don't even bother with it because it
is too cumbersome. Maybe simplification, maybe we can group
them together in some way and have some type of a matrix that
could address some of the issues that you face and that we face
in California.
Mr. Riley. Yes, I appreciate that and would like to work
with you on some ideas for both streamlining existing programs
but also making sure they are covering more folks and covering
the challenges that are particular to specialty crops across
the country.
Thank you all for being here for your testimony. Mr.
Chairman, I will yield back my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Harris, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harris. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
all on this panel for your time and your patience and the way
you have brought your expertise on a very important subject to
us today.
Mr. Abbott, let me just start with you. The Office of
Pesticide Programs was created to oversee the safe
administration of pesticides in order to help farmers, but your
testimony shows that it is failing to keep up with the demand.
As a result, farmers are missing out on more affordable and
effective products. And so in December, Mr. Abbott, Congress
passed a law that asked for an independent audit of EPA
processes and performance to make recommendations. And I just
wanted to ask if you might have some insights or what you might
expect that that audit is going to find.
Mr. Abbott. It is a great question, Congressman. I am not
sure what it will find, but I do know what we have done. As
registrants, we paid an additional 30 percent. That was what
was agreed to, and we are not seeing that money for the
backlogs that we continue to talk about here today. So I would
assume that it will maybe see some inefficiencies and where
they could possibly bolster different staffing, whether it is a
reduction in staff, people retire, people leave. I mean, we
just need to fix what is wrong.
Mr. Harris. Got you. Well, let me ask you this. Are the
delays at OPP simply a matter of a lack of Congressional
funding, or are there further regulatory changes that Congress
really needs to consider?
Mr. Abbott. I think you always got to consider the future,
look at the past, where we have been and where we are going
with new innovations, new technologies, and whether or not the
current system fits the bill going forward. I can't speak to
that, per se, but I do know we just need to do--and I think
doing an audit of it is going to probably get to the bottom of
some of that.
Mr. Harris. Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Wyant, we often hear from producers the need for more
tools in the toolbox, we have used that phrase several times
here this morning, as they face increasing pressures and the
need to produce more with less. I wonder if you could take a
moment and explain further how biostimulants being used in
conjunction with traditional crop inputs like fertilizer and
pesticides can actually help producers form a well-rounded plan
to protect their crops.
Dr. Wyant. Thank you, Congressman, great question. So those
fertilizers serve as that foundational component. We need to
provide the plants nutrition that they need to grow and produce
a great crop. That is something we have been doing for a long
time, and it is something that Nutrien prides itself on
bringing those materials to the market.
One thing we can do with biostimulants is add a new
functional component where we can take a material--and
biostimulants are a big tent with lots of ingredients and lots
of modes of action of how they impact the soil or the plant,
and we can add a new component to the fertilizer in a blend. We
can put them together and make something completely new,
completely innovative. And some of these products can be very
tailored to what those local conditions are, field conditions,
weather conditions, even crop-specific conditions. Thank you.
Mr. Harris. Okay. Great.
Mr. Cameron, given your experience producing both
conventional and organic crops, I imagine you know the ins and
outs of almost any type of crop production tool out there. I
think we would benefit from hearing your perspective on the
value of the pesticides and ensuring an abundant U.S. food
supply since you have farmed with them and without them. Could
you share with us today how access to these EPA-approved
pesticides is crucial for the farmer's success?
Mr. Cameron. Absolutely. We know and we see with farming
with very limited inputs in organic production that we run into
disease issues, we run into pest issues that we really have a
difficult time controlling. We have lost crops due to insects
and disease, which is why organic products or produce tends to
be higher in price. There is more risk involved. And when we
have conventional chemistry that we can use for crop
protection, we have a better, back to the toolbox, we have
better tools to be able to put specifically on for certain
types of pests to control them and get our crop to where we end
up with higher yields and many times better quality.
Mr. Harris. Thank you. Thank you all again for being here
today and for your expertise that you have shared.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Maryland,
Mrs. McClain Delaney, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. So thank you to our witnesses here
today. I know it has been a long morning, and I really
appreciate all of your expertise.
And I do have to say thank you to our Chairman GT Thompson
and to our Ranking Member, Ms. Craig, because they really have
focused on innovation and U.S. competitiveness in the
agricultural sector, and I really appreciate that work.
Your perspectives today speak directly to the importance of
improving practical, science-driven innovation in agriculture.
And many of you have raised challenges to those resources. And
I have to say, I am a fourth-generation Idahoan, came from a
farming family, but I represent Maryland's 6th Congressional
District and western Maryland in our ag preserve. And I believe
in our strong regulatory system, although it clearly needs
improvement, but we can't meet today's needs without proper
resources. So my questions are just going to focus on really
understaffing and resourcing, probably at the EPA, and also you
know, further research at our land-grant universities.
The EPA's Office of Pesticides Program is chronically
under-funded and understaffed, as we have talked today, and
leading to backlogs that delay access to safer, more effective
tools. And, second, I want to highlight the vital role of our
land-grant universities and regional research and what that
means.
So with respect to these staffing shortages, Mr. Cameron,
you highlighted that there is simply not enough staff and
resources to sometimes keep up with the applications in some of
your testimony, and I share your concern, especially given the
impact on the EPA's ability to improve innovation products.
With growing resistance to existing pesticides and a shifting
consumer demand, is there a way farmers in the private-sector
could help better address some of these staffing shortages and
this education back loop? I saw some of your testimony and
thought it was really interesting. And, do you have any
specific recommendations for us in Congress? And I might add
that also open that up to the whole panel as well.
Mr. Cameron. No, we know that we have a lack of products
that we can use in traditional farming and in the organic world
since I live in both realms.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. Yes.
Mr. Cameron. We know that the products, we are being asked
to reduce pesticide use, produce healthy food for consumers
throughout the nation, but the tools take time. You have heard
10, 12 years to go from inception to being able to be
registered in the field, so anything we are getting now was
designed or created years ago. So we are not seeing the
technology move forward at a rapid pace.
Possibly, I can see some type of accelerated program for
biologicals that may not have the traditional risk associated
with it, maybe a special category, but definitely working with
state governments that do have--like we do in California, we
have a Department of Pesticide Regulation, work in tandem,
possibly get an MOU put together to where we can move products
forward together rather than getting a product registered at
the Federal level and then going through a California process.
It just delays. It is delay after delay. We need things now.
The consumers are demanding it, and we want to be good
stewards. We feel we are. We just need to get products through
the process.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. Thank you. I am going to just move on
quickly for time for university investment. Mr. Abbott, you
mentioned that the CBDA supports increased Federal investments
in applied research and demonstration projects through land-
grant universities and regional Centers of Excellence, and
Maryland has a great footprint of strong land-grant
universities. I am curious, how can we better leverage to
support testing new spray technologies, validating application
strategies, and supporting farmer adoption through education
and outreach?
And then I loved the comment about investment in students
themselves as well because I think that is important.
Mr. Abbott. Sure. No, and I will just talk briefly here
because I know our time is short here, but they have not
stopped the research, right? I know several researchers, they
continue, and I have also helped support because they solicit
grants and working for a large multinational at DuPont, I
helped get some of those fundings for them because I saw the
importance. And it wasn't around just selling a product. It was
actually getting the tools into the farmer's hands.
Mrs. McClain Delaney. Anyone else in terms of input on
that? All of you seem to really support research as well, but
any other specific recommendations for us? All right. And for
the record, I will submit one more question about regulatory
delays, but my time is up. I yield back, and thank you all,
very informative today, and I appreciate your testimony.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
Now I recognize the pride of South Dakota, Mr. Dusty
Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cameron, I come to you. I think we all realize
producers deserve a consistent science-based approach toward
crop protection tools, a national labeling standard that
embraces that consistency and that science-based approach. It
seems like we increasingly have a state or two that wants to be
in the business of conflicting labeling standards. Tell me
about the frustration or the complication that causes
producers.
Mr. Cameron. I said earlier that when you have a product
that is fully registered in one state but not in another, I
think it puts that state at a disadvantage. They can't compete
equally, and it creates issues. We may have an insect
infestation that needs a product that isn't fully registered
within that state. It creates issues, creates the use of using
more material, maybe more toxic materials to try and find a
solution to the problem a grower may have. So, I am always in
support of uniform labeling and uniform distribution of the
product and the legality, the legal side of application.
Mr. Johnson. And I think the Committee here, most Members
well understand the rigorous science-based approach that EPA
engages in to get these labeling requirements. I think it is
broadly accepted across the industry. States that are
attempting to do their own labels have their own processes. Do
any of them match or exceed the rigor of what we see at the
Federal level?
Mr. Cameron. Occasionally, that is the case, yep. They may
make the product more restrictive, put buffer zones.
Mr. Johnson. I know that they may be more restrictive, but
is their scientific analysis, are they doing more science, or
are they allowing political science to creep into their
findings?
Mr. Cameron. I think it is probably a mix of both.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sure. Okay. How about for you, Mr.
Abbott? You talked about, and I thought appropriately so, that
ESA compliance has been trending away from practical solutions
and toward more land restrictions. It seems like in some cases
that can be the wrong approach. Can technology help solve these
problems?
Mr. Abbott. I believe so. And I will say I lived in your
beautiful state for 5 years. I was a DuPont rep up there, so
lived in Pierre, actually Fort Pierre, West River.
I would say yes, the adjuvants play a huge part into that
on the ESA. There are several different things that can be and
were recognized from nozzles, different things, but in order to
fine tune it and help reduce that buffer even more because,
let's face it, if you do a buffer zone, that is lost
production, and that is money out of the farmer's pocket. So I
am not saying that we don't need to pay attention to the
endangered species, but I think we have the tools and the
technology to mitigate that.
Mr. Johnson. So you mentioned nozzles. I mean, help us
understand, explain for folks a little bit how some of these
drift reduction tools, these practical tools can help. I mean,
how do they work?
Mr. Abbott. Sure. So when you add that to the tank mix, it
is going to help increase the volume, the VMD is what it is
called, and it is the droplet size because what spreads and
what drifts is fines, right? When you come out of the nozzle
body, out of the orifice, it is going to drift across the
field. We are influencing that to minimize that. You are never
going to totally eliminate it, but you can definitely severely
reduce that.
Mr. Johnson. I don't have any particular answer in mind,
but is there something Congress can do to encourage more of
these technological, practical solutions rather than just carte
blanche, the land restrictions?
Mr. Abbott. I would say work within the committees that are
in Congress in support and the funding because I think some of
this, they don't quite understand we need to get adequate
resources there to bring in the experts if you will.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.
The Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman. I appreciate the
fact that we just actually passed legislation that increased
investment in agriculture research. It is something that
unifies both sides of the aisle here recognizing that.
I am now pleased to recognize a patient and very effective
legislator, Mr. Taylor from Ohio, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member.
I think if I just yield back before anybody walks in, you
guys get to go home, but let's gamble a little bit here.
Dr. Wyant, you have a lot of experience dealing with all
the different state regulations and regulators, and you talked
in your testimony about the trouble of a patchwork approach
concerning definitions as well. Can you talk about how having
50 different regulations and 50 different definitions of
something would complicate your business?
Dr. Wyant. Thank you, Congressman, appreciate that
question. Yes, so having this patchwork of regulation means
some farmers in some states have tools available to them where
just going over a border they don't have that tool, and that is
quite frustrating to the growers. We experience that. I am from
Arizona. We have access to tools that Californians don't, even
though it is just a river that separates us. Climate is very
similar. The stressors are very similar. Maybe the same for
Midwestern growers now where there is this heat dome going
across the country, an incredible stressful event for a crop
that is developing at a sensitive time for yield. The heat dome
doesn't care where state borders end and where they begin. It
is a climate event. It is a weather event.
So I think cleaning up some of that patchwork and providing
a Federal definition of what a biostimulant is and what it
isn't and then excluding it from FIFRA to really just expand
access to the toolbox and even it out throughout these
different states. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Is that something you see a level of
concern from the average farmer about, or are they not as
concerned as they should be? If you understand what I am trying
to ask.
Dr. Wyant. I hear the frustration. I came up in
agriculture, California, Arizona. My first territory was
Phoenix to San Diego. We farm out there. If you are eating a
salad in the wintertime, it is coming from us. And lots of
frustration from growers on the California side because they
know their buddies over the river in Arizona have a tool that
they don't have access to, and they are frustrated. It is slow,
it is delayed, and it is years later maybe that tool does show
up on the toolbox. And it is just differences in how states
approach innovation.
Mr. Taylor. Sure. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Cameron, as a farmer at the Terranova Ranch for nearly
40 years, I think you can provide a unique perspective on the
changes in the agricultural industry. From technology and
equipment to yield and productivity, things have changed
immensely in the ag industry over the last 40 years. During
that time, I am sure you have seen new technologies that
helped, some that weren't the right fit, and maybe even some
that you thought were going to be widespread but ultimately did
not take off. America has been built on consistently changing
and improving, but it can take time for adoption to occur. I am
curious, as a farmer, could you talk about how adopting new
technologies, especially from startup companies, can be a
daunting task?
Mr. Cameron. Yes, we have worked with several startups over
the years. We have actually worked with a company that is
producing nitrogen fertilizer out of the atmosphere with
electric energy. They came to our farm. We gave them a corner
of the ranch. We actually had Secretary Vilsack see that and
called it lightning in a bottle. Now, due to Federal grants,
they upsized, and they are now going to start groundwork for a
new facility in California in September.
So I think working growers can help. They can give them
advice. There are things that are going to be great for
agriculture, but the changes I have seen over the years are
immense. I have a VAPAM sodium metam 1 quart container that was
purchased at Kmart generations ago, and now we know the
restrictive nature of using that product. We have come a long
way. We have improved a lot. I think we have a great future as
long as we continue with research development and being open to
new products.
Mr. Taylor. Right. Are there things that we can do, meaning
Congress, to incentivize the adoption of these things other
than make them cheaper, subsidize them? Are there other things
we can do?
Mr. Cameron. Yes, I mean, we know that maybe tax breaks for
new developments possibly for incentivizing growers to make
adoption of new technology. There are a lot of ways to
incentivize farmers to get these new methods on-farm.
Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate
everyone's time and sacrifices you made to be with us today,
and sorry about that.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman, yields back. I now
recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Gray, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Craig,
for holding this timely hearing, and thank you to our witnesses
for being here today, appreciate that.
I find myself concerned about the narrative developed
around the health and safety of our crops. Farmers are under
increasing stress, tariffs, labor, changes in energy policy,
and I think these last few years have really revealed just how
fragile our food production system can be. We must focus on
science and research to ensure everyone has access to safe and
healthy food, but the Central Valley grows healthy food, point
blank, full stop. From vegetables to fruits to nuts, our
producers are at the core of ensuring America is healthy.
Our farmers care deeply about feeding Americans safe
products and do so under a uniquely stringent regulatory
environment in California. I worry that what seems to be a
well-intentioned movement is achieving the opposite. By not
following the science and creating dangerous narratives that go
against what research and our institutions have told us, we
endanger farmers even more.
Mr. Cameron, it is great to see you here in Washington. I
find myself concerned that while the MAHA report may claim it
has the goal of making America healthy, the actual conclusions
in the report are faulty. If you were writing your own report
justifying your production practices and making suggestions for
a healthier population, what would you include?
Mr. Cameron. Thank you, Congressman. We know that we are
producing the finest and highest quality food in the world with
the safest practices for our workers, for our communities. We
are doing the right thing. We are glad to see fresh fruits and
vegetables being mentioned, and increased consumption would be
fantastic. That would help all of us in the farming community.
We demand science at the base of decisions moving forward.
We feel very strongly that sometimes we get emotion. I know
that TikTok people that get a following may not be true, could
be great, but we want to see science as a basis for any
decisions moving forward, absolutely.
Mr. Gray. I appreciate that sentiment. I don't think we can
expect our farmers to adapt to a constantly changing narrative
around their crop protection tools while at the same time
stripping away the staff and resources needed to ensure farmers
feel safe adopting these new technologies.
Just this weekend, in fact, the Administration instructed
further cuts at the EPA, closing down the Office of Research
and Development. These staff cuts lead to further delays in
critical approval processes and frankly slow the opportunity
for innovation in the crop production space.
Mr. Witherbee, in your testimony, you call for the creation
of science-based risk proportionate pathways that recognize the
unique properties of biological and gene-edited pest control
tools. Could you go ahead and elaborate on that? Is the EPA
adequately equipped to assess these technologies, or do they
need additional funds or perhaps specific scientists to
efficiently and effectively review this type of technology?
Mr. Witherbee. Yes, I think that, unfortunately, they are
regulating to legislation that has been put in place for
chemicals. As we start to look at some of these new
technologies now, they are adapting to some of these. It is
just slow, and a lot of times it is plant first and then
followed by other biologics or other things. And so it is just
not fast enough, and it is not across the board.
The same scientific decisions that are being made, is it
safe to the environment, is it safe to people, should we not be
able to go and test that, those three things are kind of key
pieces to this to move it forward and to allow for the
universities to test, and then from that, the data is there in
order to approve it to move on to commercialization and into
the growers' hands.
Mr. Gray. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the rest of
my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Florida,
Congresswoman Cammack, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Cammack. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
our witnesses for being with us today. I really do appreciate
the commentary that has been put forth today. It is a vital
topic. As the lone Representative for the entire State of
Florida being a very large ag state and production state, it is
critical, so thank you.
I will start with you, Mr. Cameron. As you stated in your
testimony, IR-4 is a key resource for our specialty crop
producers. And as so many of you know, Florida is home to 300
specialty crops, so something that is near and dear to our
hearts. Can you share with us some of the breakthrough
innovations over the last few years that that has enabled?
Mr. Cameron. I apologize. I don't have specific results for
you, but I do know that this has been a very successful
program. We haven't had to deal at our location with products
that have gone through the IR-4 process, although we are
dealing with--I take that back. We are running tests currently
through the IR-4 Project for a pesticide that is used in some
of the other commodity crops that we are trying on processing
tomatoes. We want to see if there is a fit, seeing if we can
control thrips early season so that we can get control where we
usually don't have products that fit that need. So it is
getting to the farm. Maybe some other farms, possibly more, but
we are always looking for new solutions.
Mrs. Cammack. Well, and I know you have touched on this a
little bit today, Mr. Cameron, but talk a little bit about the
role that Congress can play explicitly just so folks back home
can really understand the role that we here can have in making
sure that our producers, particularly as it relates to
specialty crops, have access to safe and effective crop
protection options. And you can talk through regulatory reform,
research investments, or other means. But really for the folks
back home, what is the most important thing Congress can be
doing?
Mr. Cameron. Well, I think many times specialty crops get
left out of the mix. We know that----
Mrs. Cammack. Preach. Thank you. Amen.
Mr. Cameron. No, we realize that, let's face it, the
commodity crops that have millions of acres, it is a bigger
market, gets more attention. In California, we have crops that
you may only have 100 acres, 200 acres in very small specific
crops that are being grown, and they are totally uncovered.
They don't have the crop protection chemicals because nobody
has pursued the label. That makes it very difficult to grow
crops similar to very small plots when you compare it to the
rest of the nation. So we always do need like an IR-4 Project.
We need Section 18, Section 24 where we have local needs that
we can actually bring certain products into those situations.
But many times, it takes a long time to develop those, so
emergency situations even for larger minor crops, so any help
we could get either in funding for research to where we can
develop a label for some of these minor crops.
I mentioned earlier my neighbor planted agave, low water
use. We will see how that works out, but absolutely no products
can legally be used on that crop for crop protection. So
anything you can do for funding to get into the IR-4 Project,
the FAR program to where we can actually see results in the
field in growers' hands is invaluable.
Mrs. Cammack. Okay. I appreciate that, Mr. Cameron.
I am going to go to you, Mr. Witherbee. As you know, the
Asian citrus fly has decimated our citrus growers in Florida
really and across the country. Have you performed any research
on whether a sterile insect technique could be applicable in
combating citrus greening?
Mr. Witherbee. It is a little tougher mechanism of action,
unfortunately. It could help. You start to suppress the amount
of insects that are available to link up to the orange, and
then you can decrease greening. It is a bigger problem, and so
it is one of those where it would require research. We know it
is important, but it is also a specialty crop where the return
on investment is really tough. And so part of it is funding
that would go into a lot of that research for new technologies
just hasn't been there. It has been in some cases, but this is
where, over the years, like I said, the delays that would take
to get it even if it was emergency use would be really tough to
get something new into that industry very quickly.
Mrs. Cammack. Well, I think you are making the case as to
why the research dollars are so critically important.
Mr. Witherbee. Yes.
Mrs. Cammack. And of course we are very proud of the fact
that the farm bill includes another 5 years' worth of funding
to combat citrus greening because you can't have Florida
without oranges, right? So thank you.
My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. And actually, what we
just passed is 6 years' worth of funding.
I am pleased to recognize my good friend from California,
Mr. Carbajal, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to you
and Ranking Member Craig for having this important hearing.
Mr. Cameron, you are from paradise, also known as
California, and I am really glad that you are imparting your
wisdom onto the rest of our country today. I represent the
Central Coast, which is an even focused paradise within
paradise in California. And Ranking Member Craig was just in my
district this past weekend, and I was talking to the Chairman
about him visiting as well, and so I hope you enlighten him as
to why he should come and have a good time and see the great
agriculture in our state.
Specialty crops are both unique and delicate and come with
many challenges when it comes to protecting them against pests,
invasive pests and disease. You mentioned in your testimony
that farmers have been investing in innovation to improve
methods to manage pests while reducing risks to people,
property, and the environment. What are some of the most
effective ways this Committee can support those efforts? And
how can research at our local universities help specialty crop
growers adopt safer and more effective pest management
strategies?
Mr. Cameron. So, we are looking at--I apologize. The first
part of your question was related to----
Mr. Carbajal. What are some of the most effective ways this
Committee can support those efforts?
Mr. Cameron. We believe that additional money for research
within California for specialty crops is imperative either
through the IR-4 Project, the FAR program, Specialty Crop Block
Grants, working directly with universities to fund research for
specialty crops. As you know in California, I hate to say this,
but we grow over 400 specialty crops, and we have a lot of
minor crops that need attention that usually don't get the
funding and the light shone on them to get results done in the
field.
We know that the universities are involved in many aspects
of crop production and doing research. We know the Strawberry
Commission does work at Cal Poly within your district. They
have a great grant there. The university is very well engaged
with agriculture, as is UC Davis, Fresno State, and some of the
other minor colleges, UC Merced as well.
So we know that funding is what we need. We need to be able
to do the research, engage with the farmers, show them what is
going on and new avenues, new ways of doing things. It is
really the only way we are going to get the technology down to
the grower level.
We also know that the University of California Extension is
great for moving that information through their ag advisors.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I always like to remind people
that California is the largest agriculture state in the
country, just saying.
Mr. Cameron, you noted in your testimony that dual
pesticide registration process with the state and EPA can slow
down the adoption of biologicals. From your perspective, how
can Federal and state agencies better coordinate to ensure that
these tools are both safe and more readily available to
growers?
Mr. Cameron. As you stated, there is a delay when we move
from Federal to state registration for products. I believe that
parallel registration, working with the--maybe get an MOU
between California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the
Federal EPA office so that when products do come and if they
are going to have a fit in California that we start the
registration process at the same time so that we get
registration concurrent. As you know, we increased the mill tax
for pesticides last year with the idea that we are going to get
products moving through the system at a more rapid pace.
California farmers, especially crop growers, are
innovative. They want new tools. They want new technology, and
they are always willing to adopt.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Cameron. Finally, Mr. Cameron,
as this Committee continues to work on a farm bill, I would
like to revisit a point you raised in your testimony regarding
integrated pests management, or IPM, which is already being
used by many growers. What more can Congress do to help support
methods like the use of integrated pest management so growers
can protect their crops, keep their operations strong, and
increase crop resiliency?
Mr. Cameron. I think pest management starts with your soil.
We need to have healthy soils. We need to have funding for
practices that will improve soil quality because I think you
start out with a healthy plant, an insect is less likely to
cause the damage. I think there are programs through NRCS for
funding into California that we could expand on. But, getting
new products out quicker at the Federal level would be great.
Mr. Carbajal. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am out of
time.
Thank you, Mr. Cameron.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Jackson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate each one of you coming out today for your
testimony.
I would like to first start with Mr. Abbott. You noted in
your testimony that the MAHA Commission's report ``undermines
trust in the regulatory process by citing unverifiable sources,
omitting key stakeholders' voices, including farmers''--how
about that? We are missing farmers at the table--``food
producers, and scientists and making sweeping claims not
grounded in the science or structure of the current systems.''
I agree, and I am concerned that MAHA's stated goals diverge
strongly from what was reported in this document. Moving
forward, what would you like to see from the commission to
believe that they are actually engaging in an honest scientific
process?
Mr. Abbott. Well, thank you for your question, Congressman.
I just would really like to see it based in science. I mean,
that is how we have gotten to where we are at today. That is
how we have gotten the tools that the farmers use today and
where we are going to go in the future, so we need sound
science reviews. And then I can't speak for the MAHA Commission
and what they have been doing, but what I can say is we all
want safe, healthy food for not only our children but our own
families and everybody, right? So it is all about food security
and food safety.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Well, thank you so much. We need a
few more farmers and producers at the table and a few less
lawyers, correct?
Mr. Abbott. Absolutely.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you so much.
Mr. Cameron, in your testimony, you mentioned EPA being
understaffed. I share this concern, and I worry that EPA will
not be able to approve the novel products or get through their
backlog of registrations review. As we see increasing
resistance to existing pesticides and a shift in consumer
sentiment towards a reduction in pesticides, how critical is it
that you get access to new products?
Mr. Cameron. I think it is actually really critical for
farmers to have new products in their hands, either biologicals
or more specific, targeted crop protection products. We know
that the public would like to see more of these. There is a
hesitancy in traditional pesticides being used on crops. We
know they are safe, but we would really appreciate seeing new
products get through the process much quicker. Even ones that
are coming out now have been in that process for 5 to 10 years,
so we are dealing with older technology already.
We know that technology is moving fast with AI. New
products are coming quicker, but they are getting backlogged at
EPA, and they are not getting into the farmer's hands. We would
love to see that changed.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you. I agree with you as
well. We need to make sure there are more scientists, not
fewer, that we can keep and preserve this great benefit we have
on being a nation that can feed the world, and that innovation
starts with education and research. Unfortunately, we have
taken a retreat on cutting back on that scientific progress.
And also let's be clear, you don't always get the thing
that you were investigating. Sometimes there is an ancillary,
there is something serendipitous, another surprise just from
doing the research.
For Mr. Witherbee, thank you so much for your time and
attention being here. You have seen an increase in resistance
to pesticides over the years with limited new chemical
development. How do technologies such as Agragene improve our
ability to fight pests and limit chemicals in the environment?
And I must say, as a nation, as we speak today in 2025, and we
are experiencing a heat dome, and we have seen flash floods,
and we have seen these new weather patterns where some parts of
the nation are experiencing drought, others are experiencing
rainfall, and now we are under this heat that this--just to
start with the pesticides, there are heat-resistant grains that
have to be produced because our climate is altering. Will you
please speak to that?
Mr. Witherbee. Yes, I still think it is the science that is
going to lead us there, and part of it is part of these
solutions. As the climate changes, as the pests change, how
they migrate, how they move, we are going to need these tools
available. It is not going to be one silver bullet that ever
solves it. It is going to be the science that leads us there.
It is going to be multiple products. It is going to be putting
it into the hands of the users to best find out how to do that.
Part of that research is really important that we are
talking about these land-grant universities having land where
they can test these new products in the environments that they
are going to be used. Part of that investment has got to be on
crops. Part of early development, you have to do crop destruct.
No grower, no farmer is really going to want to test something
new if they have to destroy the crop and not take profit from
it. So we need the land-grant universities to be able to do
some of that testing. They are also trusted by the growers and
the farmers. It is very important.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Well, I thank each and every one
of you. Dr. Wyant, I look forward to working with you in the
future.
I yield back my time. Thank you, Chairman Thompson.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
Before we adjourn today, I invite the Ranking Member to
share any closing comments that she might have.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Throughout this hearing, we have heard about innovations
that are primed to come to the market and help farmers use the
tools that are available to them to grow crops more
efficiently. For farmers to continue their progress and for
industry to thrive, we do need a fully staffed Environmental
Protection Agency. For companies to have regulatory certainty
and remain viable, they need to have their products reviewed in
a timely manner. Reducing the number of scientists at the EPA
doesn't change the regulatory system. It just leads to worse
customer service and longer wait times. There is certainly room
for reform in our regulatory system, but those reforms should
make the system work better, not worse.
For the past 100 years, we have seen immense progress in
food safety and food production efficiency. These two things
can and should go hand in hand, but the MAHA Commission is
headed the opposite direction. They are advocating for change
that makes our food supply less safe and makes it harder for
farmers to do their jobs. I hope that we can keep the
information we heard today in mind and that the testimony of
the witnesses will give us the courage to hold the
Administration accountable when they begin to degrade our food
safety system or undercut our farmers.
None of this is about ideology. It is about doing the right
thing for our farmers. It is about ensuring government and
private-sector partnerships that work together based on sound
science. I think the future remains bright for America's
farmers and biotechnology innovation so long as we can keep the
crackpots and the conspiracy theorists from hijacking our
nation's public health and food policy.
Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
I want to start my closing comments by just thanking the
witnesses. All four of you bring tremendous experience and just
a foundation in science when it comes to looking at the
chemical products that our farmers need. And these are products
that impact not just crops. I know we were pretty well focused
on crop protection, but I heard mentions to the New World
screwworm and probably some other impacts on livestock as well.
So this really is a hearing that applies to not just crops but
also livestock.
And I want to thank our staff on both sides of the aisle
for doing such a great job of helping prepare us for what I
thought was a very fruitful hearing here as we enter into our
bipartisan work on what I have been affectionately calling Farm
Bill 2.0.
American agriculture can be defined clearly as science,
technology, and innovation. We have a record of that. It is
undeniable. There are fewer applications of this definition
than what I view of the crop and the livestock protection
products that are out there. And just an example--and I give
credit to Secretary Kennedy, who is responsible for the FDA--
within the past week, their approval of a medication, basically
in the poultry industry to address the northern fowl mite,
which has an impact on the health of the birds and also
decreases egg production. And we all remember the egg crisis
here that we experienced earlier. And so that is an FDA
approval that came out within the past--well, probably 5 days
ago under the leadership of the FDA, which is under the
jurisdiction of Secretary Kennedy, and much appreciation for
that, probably the most recent example of using science,
technology, and innovation to provide agriculture solutions.
The development of all critical agricultural products for
food security is, quite frankly, well-grounded in science. We
must assure the scientific review of these products that have
to be completed with efficacy and efficiency to assure
effectiveness in farmer tools to deal with environmental
challenges, whether they be pests, diseases, or weather.
American agriculture really is the envy of the world because we
have embraced science, technology, and innovation. And we
cannot allow bureaucracy to delay or block that commitment to
progress.
So under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplementary written responses from
the witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:49 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Federal Register Rule by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative
in Congress from North Carolina
Federal Register
Vol. 90, No. 90
Monday, May 12, 2025
Page 20083
Rules and Regulations
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 110
[Docket No. AMS-AMS-25-0019]
RIN 0581-AE38
Rescission of Recordkeeping on Restricted Use Pesticides by Certified
Applications
agency: Agricultural Marketing Service(AMS), U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
action: Final rule.
summary: This action rescinds regulations pertaining to
Recordkeeping on Restricted Use Pesticides by Certified Applicators;
Surveys and Reports.
dates: The final rule is effective July 11, 2025.
for further information contact: Erin Morris, Associate
Administrator, AMS, USDA, Room 2055-S, 1400 Independence Ave. SW,
Washington, DC 20250; Telephone (202) 690-4024, or Email
[email protected].
supplementary information: The United States Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) regulations governing Recordkeeping on Restricted
Use Pesticides by Certified Applicators; Surveys and Reports are
contained in part 110 of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). These regulations set forth the requirements for recordkeeping
on restricted use pesticides by all certified private and commercial
applicators. These regulations require the Secretary of Agriculture, in
consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), to ensure certified applicators of restricted use
pesticides (described under 7 U.S.C. 136a(d)(1)(C)) maintain records
comparable to records maintained by commercial applicators of
pesticides in each state. Upon reviewing these regulations, USDA has
determined that they should be rescinded due to their obsolescence.
The record-keeping program was defunded and closed on September 30,
2012, when it was determined that the Federal funding was insufficient
to cover the costs of all state cooperators. Twenty-three state
programs have since come to operate their own programs and (1) have
implemented procedures to inspect certified applicators when complaints
are filed; or (2) they combine pesticide recordkeeping inspections with
other state and Federal inspections during one visit to a certified
private pesticide applicator. These state programs produce and
distribute their own educational outreach materials and information.
Other state programs that operated under the Federal regulations
and were no longer funded discontinued surveillance or random
inspections of certified private pesticide applicators and no longer
provided educational outreach and materials. Many of these states have
continued to conduct pesticide recordkeeping inspections when a
complaint is registered against a certified applicator in order to
support state compliance actions.
Furthermore, upon closure of the program, the EPA incorporated
training on many of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements into
Worker Protection Standards, which apply to many certified private
pesticide applicator operations.
USDA has determined that each of these reasons, independently and
alone, justifies rescission of the Recordkeeping on Restricted Use
Pesticides by Certified Applicators; Surveys and Reports regulations.
Regardless of the benefits of the regulations, USDA must not maintain
regulations that are obsolete. USDA has determined that there is no
reliance interest in an obsolete regulation. Moreover, regardless of
the lawfulness, USDA has no interest in maintaining a rule that is
obsolete.
To the extent there is any uncertainty about the costs and benefits
of the Recordkeeping on Restricted Use Pesticides by Certified
Applicators; Surveys and Reports regulations, it is the policy of USDA
to err on the side of deregulation. USDA's limited resources should be
focused on fairly and rationally enforcing a discrete and manageable
number of regulations. The regulations in Recordkeeping on Restricted
Use Pesticides by Certified Applicators; Surveys and Reports are not a
priority.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 110
Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Pesticides and pests, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 136a(d)(1)(c), 136i-1, and 450; 7
CFR 2.17, 2.50; and for the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS
amends 7 CFR subtitle B chapter 1 as follows:
Part 110--[Removed]
u 1. Remove part 110.
Bruce Summers, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2025-08220 Filed 5-9-25; 8:45 am]
Billing Code P
______
Submitted Questions
Questions Submitted by Hon. John W. Rose, a Representative in Congress
from Tennessee
Response from Terry Abbott, Chairman, Council of Producers and
Distributors of Agrotechnology; Sr. Product Portfolio Manager,
Adjuvants Unlimited
Question 1. Mr. Abbott, in your written testimony, you mentioned
that the integrity of the U.S. Pesticide Regulatory System had been
challenged by recent narratives. While I think I understand the broad
goals of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, I also share
concerns regarding the origination of many of the claims made and the
future repercussions for the agriculture industry and food supply.
Mr. Abbott, if crop protection tools, like pesticides, become
scarcer, how will crop production, grocery prices, and the food supply
be affected in the future?
Answer. We have seen real-world examples of what happens when
access is curtailed by political decisions rather than science. Sri
Lanka's abrupt ban on pesticides led to widespread crop failures, food
shortages, and economic turmoil. While our system is far stronger, the
principle remains: without reliable access to safe and effective tools,
our ability to produce an abundant and affordable food supply is at
risk.
Question 2. Mr. Abbott, can you elaborate on how the MAHA
Commission should work in tandem with agriculture stakeholders and
accredited scientists to ensure crop protection tools are safeguarded
while also delivering on an agenda to provide an even healthier food
supply?
Answer. The MAHA Commission has a responsibility to ground its work
in science and to engage those who actually grow and supply the
nation's food. Unfortunately, its initial report leaned heavily on
unverifiable sources and overlooked critical voices from farmers, food
producers, and accredited scientists. If the Commission is to succeed,
it must shift course and fully integrate agriculture stakeholders into
the process.
That means ensuring U.S. growers, land-grant universities, and
scientific experts have a seat at the table when recommendations are
developed. It also means recognizing that the United States already has
the most rigorous pesticide regulatory system in the world that protect
consumers and the environment. Strengthening, rather than sidelining,
that system is the best path to both a healthier food supply and a
resilient farm economy.
Response from Karl Wyant, Ph.D., Director of Agronomy, Nutrien
Question. Dr. Wyant, there has been a constant battle between
agricultural innovation and the authority surrounding the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Do you believe
FIFRA has been weaponized at times, and how should the Federal
Government clarify the regulatory provisions in the law to ensure
advancements are not stifled?
Answer. Innovation thrives when suppliers can introduce new
technologies to growers at a reasonable cost and in an efficient and
predictable timeframe, where regulatory hurdles are robust but not
overly burdensome. It is my view that biostimulants products should be
excluded from FIFRA regulations as this would introduce undue
regulatory burden, as biostimulant products are a distinct product
category. At the same time, I believe that a formal Federal definition
of the biostimulant category would help level the regulatory playing
field across all 50 states and allow our growers greater confidence in
the inputs they purchase and more certainty for our industry.