Bill Overview
Title: EPA Transparency for Agriculture Products Act of 2022
Description: This bill modifies the rulemaking process of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to pesticide registration, revises the EPA's Science Advisory Panel to require additional nominees, and requires review of certain panel decisions or advice.
Sponsors: Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]
Target Audience
Population: People engaged in agricultural production, distribution, and consumption
Estimated Size: 180000000
- Pesticide registration impacts farmers as they need to use pesticides to ensure crop protection and yield.
- Agriculture product manufacturers will need to be compliant with new EPA regulations and processes.
- Consumers could be indirectly impacted due to changes in food supply or pricing resulting from the regulation of pesticides.
- Environmental groups and public health organizations could be stakeholders because pesticide use impacts ecosystems and human health.
Reasoning
- The target population includes both direct and indirect stakeholders: farmers, agricultural workers, manufacturers of pesticides and agricultural products, and consumers.
- The policy budget implies that it cannot provide extensive direct financial support to all impacted groups; instead, it focuses on regulatory processes.
- The Cantril wellbeing scale is used here to assess the subjective wellbeing of individuals based on their perception of the policy's impact on their lives.
- Individuals in agriculture are considered as direct stakeholders, while consumers and environmental advocates are considered indirect but significant stakeholders.
- The diverse geography of the US agricultural sector means the impact of the policy may vary by location, highlighting the need for representative interviews.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m worried about how new regulations might delay the use of new pesticides that help with my crops.
- If this policy makes it easier to use safer pesticides, it could be good in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Agricultural Product Manufacturer (California)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think more transparency can help businesses like mine that are already focused on safety.
- This could escalate costs, but clarity on regulations is beneficial.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Consumer (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am all for policies that ensure the food we buy is safe.
- I hope these changes don't lead to higher food prices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Pesticide Retailer (Texas)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulations could make it tougher to market certain products.
- If there’s a clear understanding of requirements, that could be manageable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Farmer (Kansas)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could lead to better practices in using pesticides responsibly.
- There may be short-term challenges, but long-term benefits for agriculture.
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 | 9 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Florida)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support any transparency that can lead to reduced environmental harm from pesticides.
- I hope the policy is implemented efficiently and that scientific evidence is prioritized.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Public Health Official (Nebraska)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will encourage better safety practices and enhanced review processes.
- It’s essential that these changes are practically enforceable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Policy Analyst (Washington)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It is vital to balance economic and environmental concerns with this policy.
- A streamlined and transparent EPA process could help all stakeholders.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Grocery Store Owner (Georgia)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changes in regulations might affect the products I can sell.
- Ultimately, more information can also help consumers make better choices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Student (Ohio)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe more transparency in regulatory processes is always beneficial.
- I hope this leads to more innovation in sustainable farming practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $72000000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $31930000, High: $74160000)
Year 5: $58336480 (Low: $34080090, High: $79114560)
Year 10: $67142207 (Low: $39263427, High: $90984773)
Year 100: $117872479 (Low: $68928790, High: $159974737)
Key Considerations
- The magnitude of costs and savings will largely depend on the specifics of the new rulemaking processes and efficiency improvements achieved.
- Interaction with existing state and federal agricultural regulations may influence overall cost-effectiveness.
- Stakeholder responses, especially from large agricultural corporations, could impact the speed and manner of implementation.