Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to prohibit the local regulation of pesticide use, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to prohibit local regulations relating to the sale, distribution, labeling, application, or use of any pesticide or device subject to regulation by a state or the Environmental Protection Agency under FIFRA.
Sponsors: Rep. Davis, Rodney [R-IL-13]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by pesticide use and regulation
Estimated Size: 5000000
- Pesticide applicators and agricultural workers will be directly impacted as their practices will follow state or federal guidelines only, bypassing local regulation.
- Consumers and individuals living in agricultural areas might be affected due to changes in how pesticides are applied, which can impact local environmental and health standards.
- Environmental organizations and local governments may be impacted as they lose the ability to impose more stringent local regulations on pesticide use.
- State governments will have more control over pesticide regulation as local rules are overridden.
Reasoning
- Pesticide applicators and farm workers will see the most direct effects since they are heavily affected by regulatory changes in pesticide use. Local nuances might previously have made their practices more cumbersome or less optimal, which federal and state rules could standardize.
- Consumers may notice changes in the availability and pricing of certain produce items that are affected by pesticide regulations. Some may see an improvement in consistency, while others might worry about reduced local safety standards.
- Farm owners may view the change positively due to a reduction in regulatory complexity, allowing for a more straightforward application process across different regions.
- Environmental activists and those living near agricultural areas might feel uneasy about a potential increase in pesticide use and the accompanying environmental effects, as local governments lose the ability to enforce stricter rules.
- State environmental agencies might notice an increase in workload as they take on more regulatory responsibility from local governments, but may appreciate having more consistent statewide guidelines.
- The budget must consider not just direct costs of implementing regulatory changes but also educational programs to inform applicators and the general public.
Simulated Interviews
Farm Owner (Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad there will be a single set of rules to follow, rather than different regulations for surrounding counties.
- It will reduce administrative costs and confusion.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Environmental Scientist (California)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about losing the local ability to regulate pesticides more effectively in environmentally sensitive areas.
- This might lead to higher exposure risks to environments and communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 8 |
Pesticide Applicator (Nebraska)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- One set of rules makes my job easier and safer, reducing the chances of accidental non-compliance.
- I worry about potential misuse by those not as conscientious about their applications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Grocery Store Owner (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned that changes in policy might impact the availability of certain local produce.
- Standardization might lead some producers to change crops or practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Community Activist (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There is a risk of increased chemical runoff affecting our communities.
- Local control is crucial for addressing specific concerns faced by different neighborhoods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
State Environmental Regulator (Florida)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law simplifies our task of regulating pesticides and ensures uniform application across the state.
- It will require more resources to manage this increased responsibility effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Organic Farmer (Illinois)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might indirectly impact our market by changing norms around pesticide use.
- Customers could view it as a step back from the push towards more organic methods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
County Health Official (Ohio)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We could see an increase in pesticide-related health cases with less local oversight.
- It may strain our health services and reduce effectiveness of preventive measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Agricultural Economist (Washington)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Uniformity in regulations can lead to more streamlined agricultural productivity.
- However, neglecting local differences can result in oversight issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
College Student (Vermont)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It seems like local voices are being silenced in favor of a bigger governmental approach.
- I worry about the potential long-term environmental impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $7500000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $7500000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $7500000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $7500000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $7500000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $7500000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- State governments must now assume full responsibility for pesticide regulation, which may require adjustments in their existing regulatory frameworks.
- Loss of local control over pesticide application could lead to one-size-fits-all regulations that might not be suitable for all local environments.
- Potential pushback from environmental groups who argue local conditions require specific regulations for effective environmental protection.