SmartTranscript of Senate Agriculture - 2025-02-19 - 9:00 AM

[Chair Russ Ingalls]: Good morning. It's Wednesday, February nineteenth, Senate Agriculture Back in Business. We're gonna spend some time talking to some folks about farm inputs and such. I think that we're looks like we might have Margaret Lagos with us, lobbyist, responsible industry for a sound Maggie, you're gonna lead off? [Vice Chair Joe Major]: Maggie's not on yet. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Not on. I can leave off. Okay. Sounds good. Come on up. Come up with the chair. [Jonathan Wolf]: Well, we'll make sure everything's here. Absolutely. My name is Jonathan Wolf. I'm the premier of Piper. I'm the lobbyist in the building. It's my first time, I think, in this community today or this year. So thank you for having us. Margaret Lagos is a long time lobbyist in the building. She we worked together for Prop Life America, a biotech innovation organization and responsible for ensuring personnel environment. I'll let everyone introduce themselves shortly, And, but I'll be around to answer ask many questions afterwards or follow-up with him. And then we can be here as well for it. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Do you wanna, drive the witness list as we go? If you wanna do that, Jonathan, or how would you like to do that? [Jonathan Wolf]: I'll I'll leave that for Margaret if she's up and running and ready to go. [Vice Chair Joe Major]: I haven't received her yet then. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: While you're waiting for Margaret? Yep. Or do you wanna who would like to lead out, do you think? [Michael Helzer]: Chairman, this is Mike Helzer with BASF. I'm happy to just introduce myself, and then hand off to my colleagues, Stephanie and and Jean. Mike Helzer with BASF Corporation. You may have heard of us. We're a a leading chemistry company. One of our primary businesses though is is agriculture, working with farmers as well as with everyday folks who wanna get rid of pests. [Jonathan Wolf]: I [Michael Helzer]: have a little bit more to say, but, want to, quickly hand off to Gene and, as I said, Stephanie. [Stephanie Pizzoferrato]: Thank you, Michael. [Gene Harrington]: Thanks, Mike. Thanks, mister chairman, members of the committee. Appreciate your time this morning. I'm Gene Harrington. I'm the senior director of state government affairs for food and agriculture for the Biotechnology Innovation Organization or BIO. BIO is the world's largest trade group focused on biotechnology issues. We cover health care, agricultural, industrial biotechnology. I cover exclusively agricultural biotechnology, so that includes companies that produce genetically engineered seeds, genetically engineered animals, biofuels, just to name a few products that that my members make. Over the years, I've I've had the pleasure of being able to come up to Vermont and lobbying on some issues of concern, so I always appreciate the opportunity to get up to Montpelier. [Stephanie Pizzoferrato]: You have a beautiful capital. I'm sorry I'm [Gene Harrington]: not able to make it today, but we do appreciate your your time. And with that, I'll turn it over to Stephanie as we dive in a little deeper here. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Thank you, Jean. Appreciate it very much. Yep. Stephanie. [Vice Chair Joe Major]: Chairman and members of the committee. It's a pleasure to get to visit with you today, and thank you for your time. I'm Stephanie Pizzaparato. I lead the government state government affairs effort for CropLife America for the eastern region of the United States. Just a little bit about CropLife. Our mission is we help to ensure growers and consumers have technologies they need to protect crops, communities, and ecosystems from the threat of pests, weeds, and diseases in environmentally and sustainable ways. So that said, we'll talk here a little bit more about some of our initiatives around the US and in Vermont, but I'm gonna turn it over to John Gaeta with RISE. And and one thing I'll say to you is CropLife and RISE are under the same umbrella. CropLife focuses on big agriculture, and RISE focuses on specialty agriculture. But I'll let, John Gaeta speak more to that. So, John, I'll turn it over to you. [John Gaeta]: Thanks, Stephanie. Good morning, everyone. Thank you to the committee and to the chair. I had the opportunity to testify a few times last year, and I'll I'll thank the committee for their good work on, you know, resolving the rodenticide issue in your state, and I'm hoping that that issue has been put to bed, hopefully. So John Gaeta, senior director of government affairs. I cover all fifty states on behalf of RISE. And like Stephanie mentioned, we are specialty products. So those are those products that can be used in the home, in the garden, lawn care, public health, mosquito control, the products that you apply to control herbicides in, you know, lakes and and bodies of water, pest control, all of those things. Basically, anything any situation where you have a pest that isn't specifically on a crop. Just, you know, wanted to say thank you again for the opportunity to to meet today, and and thank you for having our members come in and talk a little bit more about some of our issues. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Thank you very much, John. Margaret? John was there for a second. Yeah. How are you? [Margaret Laggis]: Still technology issues this morning. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: No problem. [Margaret Laggis]: I'm fine. Thank you so much for letting us all come in and introduce ourselves. You know, you're all new to this committee other than Brian. I have lobbied in Vermont for thirty five years on agricultural issues. Born and raised there, and I was married to a dairy farmer in East Harvick. That farm is still there. That's, five hundred milking cow Jersey farm, so I have a lot of background on these issues. And I really appreciate the work that this committee does. It's always been very thoughtful, and we really appreciate that. We have some very difficult discussions sometimes because there's obviously a lot of people who have concerns with issues that our companies deal with. And so we we wanna make sure that we're always research based, data based. We work very hard with the University of Vermont, and Heather with all of the work that she does on farm. And so we just really appreciate that the committee is giving us some time to introduce ourselves and talk about some of our issues. The world is rapidly changing there for Vermont farmers. We see new pests every single year that we haven't seen in the past. Vermont is leading the country in, conservation practices, and so that also creates new both new opportunities, but also new challenges for us because as we, do less tilling of the soil and we get more organic matter into the soil, which is through no till and cover cropping, we see different kinds of pest pressures and different kinds of cropping issues that come up, and these companies all represent the solutions to those. And Stephanie may have not mentioned it yet, but it takes about twelve years [Jonathan Wolf]: bring [Stephanie Pizzoferrato]: product. [Margaret Laggis]: And so a farmer may see an issue on their farm. We can't immediate yes. Somebody just asked me a question? [Vice Chair Joe Major]: Hey. You broke up a little bit, but keep going. [Margaret Laggis]: Okay. My back. Okay. And so we're very sensitive to having any of the tools that Vermont farmers, are currently allowed to use taken away from us because we just don't know what the next challenge might be. And although the agency of agriculture has the right at any time to, in an emergency situation, approve a new product or bring a new an older product back and thing. And and when a pest hits, like we had armor armyworm a few years ago, an entire field can be gone within twenty four hours. And we just don't have time to wait for the agency to provide us with an emergency request and then for our seed feed and fertilizer dealers to get that specific product in and to get our applicators the chance to go and pick it up and get it to our farm in time to avoid what can truly be a devastating crisis for a farm. So I really appreciate this this time. Yeah. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Can can you go back? [Speaker 8 ]: You started to say something about it takes twelve years, and that's when you broke up. And I don't know whether it's helpful sometimes if you turn the video off and just have audio, it has a less tendency to break up. [Margaret Laggis]: Yes. I'm actually gonna let Stephanie address that because that's her company's issue. [Vice Chair Joe Major]: Okay. Yeah. So I'll I'll speak to that. So each pesticide, when it comes to market, it has gone through it starts with these companies in the r and d stage, And it takes the average for one of these pesticides to come to market is twelve years. So that's from the R and D stages at these companies where they start the scientific research to then to the EPA registration process, where it rigorously goes through environmental studies, right, to make sure that there's no harm to health and humans and the environment. So keep in mind, when these pesticides have been well studied, so you'll hear proponents come to you for various reasons. And I just ask that you remember the extensive testing it's gone through. And I'll tell you, in my career, I've spent quite a bit of time on the corporate side. And these companies, you know, they want their employees, these farmers, to go home each night healthy and safe. They they don't want to harm the environment. And and the other thing I'd say to you is for the the materials so, like, a treated seed, for example, the materials that might go on a treated seed to help it survive in the environment with in a farm field when growing. You know, that companies put that on there because of the R and D work to show it to have better survival in the field for the environment that that seed is in. These companies would not expend the funds for material on a seed if it wasn't necessary in the various climate environments, etcetera. So I just say to you with those two pieces as as folks bring these agriculture issues to you to keep some of that in mind. I'm gonna turn it over here to Mike Helpser in a minute who can speak a little bit further to that. But the other thing I'd say to you, you know, if you wanna get out to farms or meet with some of the growers, you know, we'd be happy to do some of those tours or even with some of the companies so you can see. It's always fascinating to see some of the r and d work in some of these labs that go on. So with that, Mike, I'll turn it over to you if you wanna add to that. [Michael Helzer]: Yeah. Thanks, Steph. I appreciate it. And, mister chairman and members, BASF is one of those committees that is undertaking this innovation. Our our our headquarters for our ag business is located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. So if any of you get down that way, you're more than welcome to come by, visit the labs, visit the greenhouses, and see what we're doing. Because like like you, we we recognize that farming today is is more complex than ever. Controlling pests today in homes and urban settings is more complex than ever. We've got to control pests, weeds. There's a scarcity of natural resources. All this while the world is heading towards a population of nine billion people. So all of these challenges demand that industry and government, I think, work together to continue to commit to creating innovative solutions to tackling, in the case of farming what we what we like to call the biggest job on earth. And and so that's really our mission at BASF is to always help farmers strive to be the best stewards of their land. That's what we want. We're their partners. We are partner with them to innovate, to implement sustainable solutions, culture. We we support a culture as I said of innovation and alignment with our customers needs. Our technologies aim for healthier crops, stronger, more resistant to stress, factors such as heat or drought. So as I said, the world is changing. We're changing. We're working to meet those the the the the changes that are taking place. And we wanna obviously work with all of you and really at the end of the day be a resource for you in terms of the technology that we're we're we're creating and the solutions that we provide. So we're you guys are there's probably a hundred different things [Chair Russ Ingalls]: that we have talked about, but you're talking about some treated seed. As you're very well aware, we we have a band that's coming in to play here in Vermont. It's coming faster than what we think it's gonna come. What's Vermont facing as far as troubles look going forward? I mean, we're dropping the bucket as far as seeds that's being sold in the United States. What are we looking at, as we as we face this cliff of, the ban on neonics? [Margaret Laggis]: I don't know. Stephanie, do you wanna take that or do you want me to? [Vice Chair Joe Major]: You can or I was gonna say Jean. I know Jean's worked there with Steve at the Department of Ag a lot on this topic. So, Margaret, maybe you and then Jean. [Margaret Laggis]: Sure. You know, one of the one of the challenges that we face is that, yes, Vermont is, you know, like, a a a tiny fraction of a single percentage of all of the corn grown in the country. We also have a very different climate than where most of the corn is grown. So when when farmers in Vermont go to buy seed corn, they're looking at some of, you know, a, we have a restricted number of hybrid traits that we can even pick from in the start because we need a longer growing degree day, what they what they call we we have, you know, our we're not as warm as the places where corn is traditionally grown. And so we need to be able to have corn that can grow sometimes in less than a hundred degree days. While if you're in Iowa where they're growing millions of acres of corn, they can grow much longer season corn. And so we're we're already restricted in the corn. And so then if you take away one of the treatments, which is basically on all of the corn, and now we have even a smaller selection to choose from. So we and we also like I said, we're the leader in conservation practices. So that also changes the kinds and types of hybrids that we can use because our soil conditions are different. We're colder and wetter in the spring. So we are, our seeds have a harder time coming up and germinating and being strong when they emerge. And then we sometimes have early frost. And so then we have an issue with the dry down of corn, because you can't feed, we can't store wet corn. It'll get, it can get a fungus called a mycotoxin, which is very deadly to cows. So we have a lot of different issues that Vermont farmers are facing. And so if you start to all, you know, in an already reduced number of options, if you further reduce those number of options, that makes it really, really difficult on Vermont farmers. And we only have a few hundred of them left in the first place. So we we have zero power in the marketplace. And although these companies work really hard to try to support us and help us with research through Heather Darby's work at UVM, it's just we we cannot really tell them what to do. I mean, we're not even the tail on the dog. We're, like, one hair on the tip of the tail of the dog. And so I really hope that you would keep that in mind when you think about I mean, yes, York passed a very similar law. They're also looking at delaying their implementation. They are significantly larger than Vermont. And they also have us where they grow the vast majority of their corn is in southwestern New York, which is a very different climate than Vermont's climate. So even if the company say, okay, we'll we'll provide a non treated or a differently treated seed for those acres, which are much larger than Vermont, it's very unlikely that the leftover seed from when New York has picked their volumes of corn is going to really work in Vermont. And so you're just really limiting our options and it makes it very difficult. And if we have to buy in And if we have to buy in corn in any given year, it's a complete disaster for a farm. It's about eighty percent of the overall cost of producing milk in Vermont is is the feed that we have. And so if we can't produce our own corn, high quality corn with level of energy, which is basically what you're getting from corn, it the the replacement for that is very, very expensive. And also if we have to replace it, don't forget all of the phosphorus that is in that corn is gonna come into Vermont. And we didn't put it on the soil where it was grown versus corn. We grow here, we put our manure here, the phosphorus is here, it is absorbed by the corn and then we feed it to our house. We have kind of a closed cycle. If we're buying in products, we're buying in extra phosphorus. That's harder for Vermont farmers to control. So, Gene. [Gene Harrington]: Yeah. Thanks, Margaret. Yeah. I mean, I think the answer to your question, Mr. Chair, is, you know, we just don't know how this law is going to shake out. Each individual company is still kind of sorting out, you know, whether or not, you know, they're going to be able to provide non neonic treated seed to Vermont farmers. And I know, you know, Margaret referred to the disparity in marketplace, but maybe just to crystallize it, I mean, there there's several Iowa counties that, companies probably sell more seed to to those counties than they they do the entire state of of of of of of Vermont. So, I mean, you know, it's it's just, you know, apples and oranges, that comparison between marketplace. And that doesn't mean that seed companies don't appreciate their Vermont farmer customers. It's just that this law is creating some major difficulties in the marketplace. It's really disrupting the marketplace. So they're having to see how difficult is it going to be to provide enough non neonic treated seed to Vermont farmers? And how does that impact our bottom line? So we've still got, what, three, four years until we hit the January first, twenty twenty nine implementation date. So I mean, we'll see how things shake out. But I guess the answer to your question is we just don't know what the impact is going to be because the companies are kind of working through this as we go. But before I kind of stop, I do want to make one point. While we certainly oppose the law in its entirety, there's a provision in the Vermont law that's especially mean spirited and seemingly punitive that's not in the New York law. And it's specifically this. A provision in the Vermont law says that if the agency of agriculture grants an exemption to a farmer to be able to purchase and use, neonic treated seed, that they can then rescind that exemption. So just think through that. They're basically telling farmers, yes, you can go ahead and purchase this Neonic treated seed to use. And then at a later date, after the farmer purchases the seed, they said, no, check that. You can't do that. You can't use the seed you've spent thousands of dollars to use. And to me, that's an incredibly mean spirited punitive provision that I have no idea why it was included in there. But I mean, once the government says you can go ahead and do this and the farmer acts on it and then invests, make a per makes a purchase, it it just seems incredibly unfair that there's a provision that allows the the agency to then take that back. And I'm not saying this agency would do it because this agency has been fantastic. We have a good working relationship. But that kind of just underscores kind of just the mean spiritedness of that provision. So that, you know, that's just one kinda anecdotal example of, you know, the the problems with with the legislation that was enacted last year. [Speaker 8 ]: So if I could jump in for a second, Jean, I just wanna make a point. You mentioned January first twenty nine as the implementation date. The truth is the farmer had to decide by the fall of twenty eight what I'm gonna buy. So it's closer than we might think. And there are members of this committee who were not supportive of what wound up being passed. Even though I reported the bill on the floor, I thought we came to somewhat of a compromise. We we wanted to push the implementation date out to twenty thirty one in order for us to look across the lake and see how New York was faring with this. But that got changed on the floor with an amendment. So now we're mirroring New York states. But I just heard Margaret say, and this is something I hadn't heard before, that New York might be considering moving that date, which I'm not sure how in the end that whether we are tied to it, if they change it or we whether we'd have to go back in and and make another amendment to what what was passed. But what kind of traction, Margaret, do you think that's gonna get for the New York farmers to get that date pushed out? [Margaret Laggis]: I'm probably not the best one to answer that. Maybe Stephanie is. Yeah. [Vice Chair Joe Major]: Okay. It's exactly to the point you just made on the timing of when you purchased the seed. So Cornell has been doing some work, you know, trying to get ready for the rulemaking process in New York. And in talking with growers, that came to light on when they need to purchase the seed and if they miss the entire growing season, etcetera. So that is my understanding on why because of the timing is why they might delay in New York. So we're gonna have to we're following it further, but they have been having some work groups over there Yeah. In that regard. [Michael Helzer]: So, chair, just to clarify, there there is no formal bill that's been introduced in New York at this time. It's just something that's coming out in the context of the regulatory process and the development of rules and the work of Cornell extension. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: And no other states are looking at banning that you're aware of? [Michael Helzer]: There there was a there is a Kansas bill right now, I believe. Kansas, but that's not gonna go anywhere. Connecticut, I believe that there's a hearing today on the legislation as well, and Connecticut seems to be driving towards something, unclear [Chair Russ Ingalls]: what [Michael Helzer]: it is at this point. I just wanted to add, chair and members, to what Jean had said and really to something I had mentioned earlier about innovation. The treated seed is, is, is an example of that innovation. A really targeted application of pesticides means less foliar application of pesticides. It also when with with the ban or the ban that's going to be coming to effect in Vermont in in twenty twenty nine, it's fewer options for for the for the grower in in the state of Vermont. The use of older, less efficacious technologies. Hopefully, we can do something, I think, to put this tool back in the hands of farmers in Vermont moving forward because it's a lost opportunity, we think. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: So what you're saying, Mike, is that if we didn't have the treated seeds of that, we're going to have to just spray more pesticides. [Vice Chair Joe Major]: I I [Michael Helzer]: think that that's one of that's one of the consequences. You'd have to spray more. I mean, that's the whole purpose of you know, I had this conversation recently with a legislator, a state legislator from Long Island, and, where they grow a lot of, they grow a lot of grapes down there. They obviously have a lot of vegetable farms in that part of the state of New York. And I had that exact conversation and said it's it means less foliar application of pesticides. It's a targeted it's a targeted application of the pesticide at the end of the day. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: And, Jean, we hear you about moving of the goalposts, and we appreciate that because we've been spending a lot of time with trying to come up with resolutions, of anything that we put forward that doesn't move the goalposts. So we we appreciate that comment. That that's helpful. Just staying on this just for a second longer, we haven't banned Neonics on any on other applications in the state of Vermont. Correct? [Stephanie Pizzoferrato]: Nope. Uh-huh. [John Gaeta]: Well And [Chair Russ Ingalls]: what other seeds what other seed well, let me put it this way. Brand new committee. So I apologize. We're we're an agriculture committee, so we should know. But that's why we bring you folks on so you can educate us better. But are there any other seeds in the state of Vermont or applications that we're using that's using neonics that wasn't included in the band? [John Gaeta]: Well, I I'll just speak from so the non agricultural side, Vermont was already a state that had restricted the use of neonicotinoids. There was a a a handful of states in the late, you know, two thousand fifteen, sixteen era in which there was a move to to restrict these pesticides to take them out of the hands of consumers. And so in about forty states in the US, forty out of fifty, myself included, I live here in Illinois, I can go to my hardware store and I can purchase, something that has been formulated for the consumer, and I can apply, a neonic based insecticide to treat pests in my yard. Folks like you guys in in Vermont, Maine, New York, a few, you know, northeastern states have made the decision to go beyond, the EPA and restricted it. And then in this bill that passed with the tree and seed ban, there is also further restrictions for the use of neonics in turf and ornamental settings. So virtually, for my side of the house, there will be no neonic use. There's limited exemption within that bill. And, unfortunately, the folks that, you know, take care of lawns and gardens will no longer have this tool in the toolbox, and that's going to, you know, essentially cause overreliance on other pesticides. As, you know, Mike just said, more spraying of other pesticides, pests become, you know, resistant to those different things. And, essentially, you're left with a situation where removing a a major key and and neonics are a fascinating technology in in their targeted use and and how, you know, safe they are to the human profile. For you guys to have taken that away from those people is is is very detrimental to the broader green industry. So that's a very unfortunate state. I will say that New Jersey was the first state to kinda take that very big action to not just take it out of the hands of homeowners, but take it out of the hands of of professionals that work in lawn care and in in similar settings. But just this year, I'm having conversations with senator Bob Smith, the the gentleman who passed the bill. He now realizes, that they were told that in two thousand twenty one that there was going to be new technologies that would place neonics, and these applicators would have alternative tools. And members like Mike's company, while they have many products, there's not a one for one replacement at the moment. And he's, you know, strongly considering allowing us to move forward with, you know, something that allows us to re claw some of those uses. So just to give you, awareness in the region that there is a little bit of buyer's remorse and there is, you know, some thoughtful conversations happening about unrestricting some of these, uses of neonics. [Michael Helzer]: And chairman, members, I I will just add to that that, we have a terrible spotted lanternfly problem in the state of New Jersey. And the alternative that the state has come up with is a campaign to that's with a shoe or a boot that says, just stomp it out. Right. It hasn't quite worked as well, I think, as they had intended. But, I mean, you walk right outside our offices, BASF's North American headquarters. The the for the corporation is is located in New Jersey. In the summertime, you walk right out and the front of our building is littered with spotter and lanternflies. And these are exactly the type of pests that neonicotinoids are targeted against. [Speaker 8 ]: I do think orchards and golf courses were exempted in the bill the bill that we passed last year, if I'm mistaken. [Jonathan Wolf]: Ariel yeah. [Margaret Laggis]: Yep. That's correct. The the other thing to remember is that every, I guess I shouldn't say this universally, most new pesticides come to the marketplace because they have a greater safety record or safety opportunity than whatever it is that they're replacing. They're either more targeted, you use less, or they have, less of an effect on human health, animal health, or the environment. So anytime that you take away a technology, you know you're the the farmer or the homeowner's only other option is to go back to an older technology, which may still be on the market, but may have a a broader impact on either the environment or pets or humans. So that's the other thing to kind of take into consideration is that every single one of these new products generally come to the marketplace because they have a much more narrower profile as far as an impact goes. [Vice Chair Joe Major]: Yeah. Let me just build on that for a second, Margaret, because the going through the EPA process is not easy. Right? So these companies know you have to have a better environmental profile for a a new pesticide, or you you're just not gonna make it through the EPA approval process. So I just wanted to highlight that, Margaret. [Margaret Laggis]: Yep. That's exactly right. [Speaker 8 ]: And as part of that old technology, Margaret, diamide, I think it's called? [Margaret Laggis]: Yes. [Michael Helzer]: Yeah. Generally, I think one of the general categories is organophosphates. It's one of the older forms of technology that's out there. [Stephanie Pizzoferrato]: Yeah. Yeah. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Which is more harmful. That's Roundup. Is that that that's Roundup, basically? [Margaret Laggis]: No. That's glyphosate. Organophosphates have been phased out in by in use by most professional applicators because they had a broader human health impact. Yeah. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Okay. While we're just kind of talking about this committee, any more questions about this or any more that you folks wanna add as far as to that? And we certainly have time. We've got another twenty five minutes or so to move on to more topics if you if it's anything else that you guys would like to, or we can stay on here, whatever you'd like to it's your time. So whatever you folks would like to bring up. [Margaret Laggis]: Think the only thing that I'd like to bring up is that we had a lot of data last year on the safety of these products with regard to pollinators. And so it was it was unfortunate that that was really the reason that was given for why they had to be restricted or not allowed to be used in Vermont anymore. And we have neighbors to the north that have banned these products, as far as using them untreated seeds, etcetera. And we had a lot of information that showed that our pollinator health in in some years was actually better than theirs as far as winter kill and those kinds of things. So there was there was no we really couldn't find that there was any kind of causation. There was you know, you you have seen that pollinator health has declined. It's declined in many areas of the world where these products are not used. So we couldn't really there was really no way to prove that neonics were having this negative impact on pollinators that some of those groups, brought forward to the committee. And when we when we actually looked at the numbers, we have more bee colonies in Vermont than we used to. One of the largest beekeepers in the entire state and they do take their bees out of state. You know, they go down south to Georgia for a while. They sometimes go to California to do almonds, and then they come back to Vermont in the summertime because they wanna keep their bees busy and going all the time and not just keep them cooped up in Vermont in the cold weather, which is really difficult on bees. And they testified that their their bees are almost one hundred percent on a large farm in Newfane, Vermont where they a hundred percent use treated seeds, and their bees are very healthy and have actually gotten more healthy over the years as they've gotten better at managing the other risks, which are, varroa mites. They they really have a difficult time dealing with that. That's a parasite that gets on bees and negatively impacts them. In Vermont, one of the other things that they learned over the years when they were when the agency of agriculture was looking at bee health is that in Vermont, not this year, but in many years, we've had a longer period of warm weather and that sometimes make the bees come out and there's absolutely nothing for them to eat. And that's a huge negative on bees. That what you really want is the the weather to stay pretty much cold so they stay inside. They've got a food source that their, caretakers have provided with for them for the winter, and that these long periods of warm weather that we've had several years in a row over the last five, ten years have caused bees to kind of act unusually. And, that maybe that was one of the issues. You know, we don't really know. There are a lot of different things that are affecting pollinator health, but there really was no way to actually tie neonics to that. Do neonics negatively impact pollinators? They're insects. So, yes, it's an insecticide. Yes. If you directly apply that to bees, that is they're if they're not gonna survive that. But their their incidence of coming in contact with neonics in the Vermont environment is very, very low, and the agency of agriculture has done a great job of doing a lot of research. They put the little scrubbers at the entrance of the hives that caught the pollen off of bees, so that they could test it and find out. They found a lot of different pesticides. Some of them not even allowed to be used in Vermont in that pollen, but they didn't find neonics. So, you know, are are they potentially coming into contact with pollen? There was an issue several years ago with what they call dust off when farmers plant seeds In order to get the just the single seed to go through the planter at the right time, they use a product that, is viscous, so it it has a little bit of a of a, you know, sandpapery kind of quality to keep them from sticking together. And that was causing some of the coating to come off. Companies responded to that. They they changed their coating formulation. We have got some new, what they call, fluency products being used that allow these products to go through the the planter with without having the coatings come off. So we're we're improving that technology all the time, but that was where, some bees or other pollinators were encountering neonics was in the right after planting in the spring, but it really wasn't when when it was, the corn was pollinating. That was not the issue. [Vice Chair Joe Major]: And, Margaret, just to build on that, I just say to you, like you hear Margaret say, you know, the companies want to respond when there's an issue and and trying to find a solution for these growers. So, you know, as you work through some of these policy issues, we've got good technical, you know, PhD scientists on on board. So if we can be a resource or you, you know, have questions, don't hesitate to reach out. One area I wouldn't mind shifting to, and I know it's something new that maybe it's not new, but it's been recently bills recently introduced is PFAS. You know, we're seeing these bills across the United States and and look at it from an for our team here, look at it for the impacts on agriculture. Right? And so so one thing I I would say to you, and I can let others on on the call here weigh in as well. But for the PFAS bill that was introduced here recently in Vermont, right now for PFAS and pesticides, there is a FIFRA exemption for an exemption for products registered by FIFRA, and we support that. We're actually putting a pretty big effort in the main this year to try and get that same fit for exemption in the Maine wall. And and so I'll say a couple things to you. On pesticides that have PFAS in them, you're only talking about thirteen to sixteen percent of pesticides. So it's not a lot. But, again, I would point back to that long study process that's done, that average of twelve years from, you know, the beginning r and d stages to EPA approval, you know, there are sometimes a hundred and fifty studies that are reported into EPA as these pesticides go through the approval process. And so these peep these pesticides that have flies in them is there for a reason, again, to help a to help in the soils for to make the product do better and survive. So it's there, you know, for reasons is what I would say to you. In addition, it's gone through this very deep testing process both with the companies and at EPA. So so as the bill has been introduced from an agriculture standpoint, we support that. I'm gonna turn this over here to you, John Gaeta, if you wanna speak to it a little bit as well. But the one thing I'd say to you in Maine that has changed is, you know, the last couple years, the Maine growers were not organized on this topic. And and they're the the farmers are a bit frustrated in why Maine is different from every other state in the country, in this regard as it relates to agriculture. You know, they feel like automotive and airplanes came in and got themselves exempted. Why wasn't agriculture looked at? So we're we're trying to work on that in Maine this year. So so just wanted you to share with you that we support how the bill is drafted with that fit for exemption for pesticides. But, John, why don't I turn it over to you if you have any thoughts to add on that? [John Gaeta]: Thanks, Stephanie. I I think very well covered. I would just add, you know, PFAS is a very broad term. It encompasses many different types of, you know, chemistries. And specifically, when we're talking about PFAS as it relates to, pesticides when it's intentionally added. We're looking at different carbon structures, that we believe makes these pesticides, you know, behave the way they do. And like Stephanie has said, they're in there for a reason. And we know that because of the rigorous, testing that these types of PFAS that you might deem having PFAS using a a very broad definition, this one carbon definition that is being used in the state of Vermont and a handful of other states. That's unfortunately when you have, you know, people saying that there is PFAS and pesticides. If you, you know, if you reclassify or if you broaden, you know, shrink the scope, sorry. When you look at it as a two carbon molecule, that shrinks the number of pesticides that would be considered having intentionally added PFAS. So, it's a very complicated subject. Maine right now is, you know, the primary state in the United States that is banning all consumer products that contain intentionally added PFAS. Like Stephanie said, we are in the process of right now of, of, of meeting with legislators and, and asking them to understand that there is going to be a significant hit to the amount of products that will be available, for growers and for pest control operators and for everybody. If this goes through in two thousand and thirty two, And I can say with that long of a runway, there is there is going to be lots of fixes and changes just as there has been for other industries. Industries that, are based in in Maine have gotten exemptions. So, you know, what are we really doing here? It seems a little bit more, this is a business game than a human health game. So it's a very complicated subject, and I just wanted to reiterate that, you know, the the current exemption that exists in the bill is something that we remain supportive of, supportive of. And and we're we're thankful, that our highly regulated status has been recognized in this legislation just as it has been in in a number of states. So this is not unique. There are many states that are either explicitly exempting pesticides or are, not taking us up in these PFAS band bills because they understand that we are unique, chemistry and we are highly and heavily regulated. So, I'll hand it over back to to Margaret for for more. [Margaret Laggis]: I yeah. I I just wanted to mention very quickly. Stephanie mentioned FIFRA. And because you many of you are new to the committee, FIFRA is the federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. And so it's the overarching regulatory framework that covers all of the, what we call in general, pesticides. But that's what FIFRA is. And it's a very strict regulatory process that all of these products go through, whether they're a fungicide, insecticide, or a rodenticide. And one of the other things I would mention is that when when people are talking about PFOS, what they're really worried about is persistency in the environment. And in general, that's why that one fully fluorinated carbon has been used because that is a, you know, kind of a symbol that they landed on for persistency. But one of the things that the EPA does consider when they have allowed intentionally added PFOS in some of the these chemistries is that even though it has that molecule structure, it is not particularly persistent in the environment. And so that's what we are. We really wanna focus on that. The problem is that this very broad definition is bringing in products that actually are not the problem that we're really concerned about with regard to human health and safety. And so that's why using that incredibly broad definition is bringing in products in a variety of industries. It's you you can tell that by the fact that, you know, that these, chemistries are in pharmaceuticals. And so pharmacy, you know, the the drugs that you literally intentionally ingest in your body, some of them have PFAS in them. And so that's why we tried to come up with all of these exemptions for different products. And so there is the agency of natural resources, I believe, is is bringing forth a bill that has a slightly different definition that does not capture absolutely everything that has PFAS in it, but only those things that are persistent in the environment. And that's really what we're concerned about are those products that are out there that are so persistent in the environment that they are causing negative impacts. [Vice Chair Joe Major]: Maybe I'll just close on this and and toss it over to you all for questions. And and maybe keep this in mind as you're thinking about that PFAS law is, you know, if you've got berries, you've got raspberries, blackberries, strawberries, but then you also have poisonous berries. Right? And so you can't blanket regulate them all the same. Right? And so I would look at PFAS in that way as well. Right? We heard a scientist give us the analogy. You know, you can write the letters a through e on a chalkboard, and you label those. Those are letters. You could also label them as vitamins. Right? And if you label them as vitamins, they're all very different. And so PPODS ends up being this broad name for these molecules, and and you've gotta look at them differently because some of them, you know, you you like Margaret said, are not as per persistent in the environment. Other ones that, you know, some of these manufacturers have moved away from making are bad for the environment. So I just you know, you have to keep that in mind as you're looking at it. But I'll I'll stop at that and turn it over to you all if you have questions for us or any other topics you wanna go to. [Speaker 8 ]: Thank you, mister chair. I just wanna thank Margaret for reminding me of [Chair Russ Ingalls]: some [Speaker 8 ]: of the testimony we heard last year regarding the pollinator situation and make the other members of the committee aware. If you're looking at beehives, and that was, I think, the main reason that that whole banning on neonics came about, The Varroa wing was clearly clearly the biggest challenge for bees, followed closely by the weather. And Margaret talked about the winter kill, and that only makes sense. But the other one that we kinda lost track of was Beehive Management, and sometimes people don't do as good a job managing what they have as they might. And then down the list, and I don't know if it was seventh or eighth or tenth on the top ten, but, yeah, there's a there's a negative effect for the NeoNix at some point, but it was clearly, to me at least, really minimal when you stack it up against the other variables that, you know, a bee a beekeeper might have. So I I had forgotten about that. And the fact of the matter is the agency here, agriculture agency, displayed great numbers. We've never had more beehives than we have right now. So it it's not as negative as some of the folks portrayed when when they testified on the bill. And, again, there were some of us that just didn't buy it, but we were in the minority, and that's why it passed. [John Gaeta]: Yeah. That's an excellent point. I just, you know, wanted to add that you I mentioned earlier in this meeting that there were a handful of states that went and took very restrictive measures, you know, in two thousand fifteen, two thousand sixteen. I've you know, I I'm of the folks on this call, I've been in the industry, you know, probably the least eight years of experience. But in my eight years in this industry, I have never once gone into a committee room and had someone present to me any data that showed because the state of Maryland or because the state of Connecticut went ahead and restricted these neonics, did the population of bees change in any significant way? Like Margaret mentioned, USDA puts out the numbers of bees every year looking at the hives. It's up and down all across the country. There is no consistent measure of one thing or the other. And so just stressing to you that when you hear folks that come in and say, we must ban x pesticide because of its harm to pollinators, just know there has never been any significant data that has ever concluded pollinator health magically rebounded or grew because we we banned x pesticide. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: I thought the ironic part of it was is to get rid of the mites as you sprayed your bees with pesticides. [Margaret Laggis]: That's absolutely true. And there's very few options for them with regard to mite control, And therefore, that that was one of the issues that the agency of agriculture found is when they were testing the pollen at the entryway to a lot of these hives, it was very clear that some beekeepers, out of total desperation probably, were using products that weren't generally approved for that practice, but they're they are trying a lot of different options trying to save their hives. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Yep. Well, good, Britney. [Speaker 8 ]: I'm all set. [Stephanie Pizzoferrato]: You're gonna do? [Chair Russ Ingalls]: No. I'm I'm anything else you guys like to share with us today? [Margaret Laggis]: No. We just really appreciate the opportunity to come in and have this conversation, and please call on us at any time if you have any questions about any of the products or the issues that our industry deals with. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Thank you. We appreciate you. You're very helpful with us, and appreciate it. And I'm sure we'll be talking again. [Jonathan Wolf]: Thank you so much. [Vice Chair Joe Major]: Thanks a lot. [Gene Harrington]: Thanks so much for your time. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Yep. Thank you. [Gene Harrington]: Take care. Bye bye. Thanks. [Stephanie Pizzoferrato]: Thank you. Appreciate it. Yep. Can we Yep. I I wanna [Speaker 8 ]: the bottom one for a second. Sure. Can you [Stephanie Pizzoferrato]: just take me to the genesis of of this and why I mean, I I understand, but it seems as if this was so restrictive as opposed to what it could be. Like, I know that California just did it for residential. But this the just listening to this and and and not being in that testimony just seems like, okay. We're just banning the whole thing. Why why [Chair Russ Ingalls]: did it go so restrictive last week? I can add something to that. [Speaker 8 ]: Yeah. It came over as a house bill. Okay. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: So it started there, and [Speaker 8 ]: the House Agriculture Committee took testimony on it. And we had the Robin Chestnut, for instance, was, I think, the sponsor of the bill on East Town Highway or was and came in and testified that it there was a study from Cornell, and they used some of the stats there to try to show that there was a direct causation between using the treated seed and the bee population. And we had, refutations from the agency of ag that it just wasn't ever proven that that was true. So we took a lot of testimony. We took we talked to beekeepers who had cornfields right next to their hives and had no significant impact one way or the other. So I was convinced that it it wasn't time to make that strong a law. And it just didn't work. What happened is they come up with [Chair Russ Ingalls]: a compromise because it's raw power center. It's raw power. When you have raw power of something that they wanna get done, they're gonna get it done. And so what this committee did is they tried to come up with the best compromise of what it was, which was to delay it as long as you can to give the seat manufacturers more time to do something with it. And so they did delay it until two thousand thirty one, which was something that was two more years longer than what it was because if you didn't do something, it was just gonna get banned. So they come up with a compromise on it, out of this committee, then it got on the senate floor. And then the people that had the raw power said, no. That's not good enough. We want even more and hammered it some more and got rid of a two extra years that probably would've gave the seed company something longer to or at least to study the effects up and put an end date of it. But the reason why I had this speak when we first all got here was for two reasons. One of the reasons was it was for you two. It was for you two because you're on a committee that is in a minority. And I never wanna never put the minority in in this committee in in a spot to where they thought that, oh, well, we're just raw power. They're just gonna ride over the top of us. That would never happen here. That's why I said that we're not a political committee. We are a committee, but we're only gonna deal with what is best for agriculture. Because, basically, that's what happened last year when this thing got passed. It was just raw power that came over the top. You weren't gonna stop it. The best thing you could do was come up with the best compromise, and they keep they did that. Even even at that time, the the chair of this committee didn't wanna take the bill up. He was told he would bring it up. And so he did bring it up. He was gonna just not even bring it up, but he did bring it up, come up with the best deal that he could, and then got pounded on the floor even more on it, and then ended up voting against the bill when after the governor vetoed it. So that's where where where it's politics sometimes that gets there, that not the best decision is made. And that's why I gave the speech the very first day that we are here, that we would always be a committee that took and did with what was best for what we were charged with, which was to be an agricultural committee. [Stephanie Pizzoferrato]: Do you think there that there's any appetite to reinstate the additional two [Speaker 8 ]: That's a great question. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: It's a great question. It's why we're visiting it again. It's why we're looking at it again to bring it back to a decision based on agriculture. And [Stephanie Pizzoferrato]: because it seems like it it the the Cornell study was really the only impetus for this and the only data that they they had. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Well, there were there was other testimony as well. [Speaker 8 ]: It just I have a tendency to lean more heavily toward things that help dairy farming. Mhmm. And growing corn is a big part of dairy farming. Yep. You're gonna feed the cow. [Vice Chair Joe Major]: Yep. [Speaker 8 ]: I and I realized that I'm prejudiced in that in that respect, but that's just the way I feel. So if if the testimony had shown me absolutely that there was a direct causation between putting neonics in the ground and bees, I would have voted the other way, but I I wasn't convinced that way. So, you know, it's a policy decision. As the chairs indicated, the folks, maybe the other side had a little bit more voting power, and, nearly, that's what what it came down. [Stephanie Pizzoferrato]: I think just I mean and and I'm just looking. Oh, it's of May of last year, eleven states had had this in in some. It's not nearly as restricted. Right. Vermont is you know, Vermont, when you look at Rhode Island, New York. But the some of it's just, like, landscaping, noncommercial things. So I I I don't know. I this was compelling to me. You know? But I with Grant, I've only heard one side, so Sure. Go ahead. Guarantee Yep. The other side. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: And we and we will. We will. I that's another thing I promise you. And that's the thing I've said. I mean, the very first day that we were in here, we had an exchange between YouTube where one was one way and one was the other. And it was like, well, at the end of it, I that's what I want. I want I want to know, and I want you guys to make your minds up on what you what you hear, what you've done, and we're gonna do that. We're gonna get all sides of it. And and your question is was that is there an appetite? Well, maybe there might be. But before we can have the appetite, let's work more as a committee to hear and Build up again. Let well or let's get all sides of it. You know? Let's get it so that it's not one way. Let's get it so that you can make the best decision for agriculture, not just because of, you know, what it is. So and we will have other testimonies. [Stephanie Pizzoferrato]: And that's, I mean, that's, you know, kind [Chair Russ Ingalls]: of what I was going for. Yeah. [Stephanie Pizzoferrato]: You know? I [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Let's hear the other side. [Stephanie Pizzoferrato]: This is compelling to me. Yeah. [Speaker 8 ]: You know? [Speaker 9 ]: You would ask if if it's tied to New York, and it's tied to New York. So if New York doesn't go into effect, it doesn't go into effect. Okay. If it's repealed in New York, it's repealed here. Ah. So There might be a lot. [Speaker 8 ]: I couldn't remember that in August, but I didn't. [Speaker 9 ]: That's what I was looking up when you when [Speaker 8 ]: Yeah. Thank you, [Stephanie Pizzoferrato]: Bob. That's important. [Speaker 9 ]: Well, from my point of view, I don't know nearly enough about this tenant to say anything. Right. [Speaker 8 ]: I didn't either till last year. Right. Yeah. Right. [Speaker 9 ]: I can I can imagine this? You know? Listen to these folks. [Speaker 8 ]: I mean, they have a [Chair Russ Ingalls]: a particular Yeah. Viewpoint. [Speaker 9 ]: Sure. My general take on things, though, is it just happened and undoing it immediately. And this might be my my whole lawyer precedent thing where you have a precedent, and that means something. Right. Last preference, and you know it doesn't work anymore. My my general sense is, you know, don't mess with it if it's brand new. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Right. But we'll be hearing a lot more I can tell you this, is that we're a two year committee. Yeah. And we won't and we won't do anything on it this year, and it would be it would be in the second biennium Yeah. That that we would that we if we were gonna do anything, it would be that. I just want you guys to learn more about it. And I wanna [Stephanie Pizzoferrato]: hear That's that's absolutely it. You know? I I I don't know. This was this was one time, but I I will say this is it's really compelling to me, you know, to to give you pause. And and I always try to go by data. Right. You know? I try to go by data. So I yeah. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: That's that is the right way. What I would say is there are many ways to the way that I live my life as well. There are a lot of times, and there has been a lot of times where I've done my in this building as well. I've heard of Belfort. Well, you know, we had a conversation in another committee just yesterday about where I stood on something. But as I was sitting there saying what I was saying, I was like, there's been lots of times in this building where I have had my own opinions of it, but as soon as we keep on working through the process of Mhmm. My mind has changed. And it has because it was based on data. It was based on what getting all of the best data that we could and then say, okay. I can remember talking to my chair in transportation. I'm just not gonna be able to support this. And at [Stephanie Pizzoferrato]: the end of the day, I did. Mhmm. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: In fact, I so anyways Okay. We'll keep on going. We'll keep on seeing some more. I don't wanna you know, we're gonna do it in bits and pieces as far as where it is because I think it is gonna be until next year. And so we'll get some more people in, and we'll hear the outside of it.

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of Senate Agriculture - 2025-02-19 - 9:00 AM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: