Legislative Policy

Congratulations Everyone!

We have made a small difference.

The CT general assembly passed SB9 May 28, 2025. This is a good step forward in Connecticut's fight to restrict neonics. There is more work to do, but SB9 ends the use of neonics on the state’s over 350,000 acres of grass. This change should help protect birds and pollinators as well as reduce the harmful levels of this pesticide in our rivers.

CPR advocates have managed to make neonics an issue that the people of Connecticut and their legislators are aware of and care about! We have seen legislative champions step forward to press for even stronger restrictions.

__________________________________________________________________________

History of the Actions to Pass this New Law:

In January 2025 the house raised the bill HB6916 An Act Concerning the Use of Neonicotinoids. The bill was similar to the New York Birds & Bees Protection Act and if passed would have addressed two high harm, low benefit uses of neonics in Connecticut. The bill restricted use on lawns, golf courses and ornamental landscape plants and use of three coated agricultural seeds shown to not increase yields for farmers: corn, soybean, and wheat. This was the bill advocates had hoped to pass.

Neonics language was also introduced as part of Senate Bill 9, but it removed of all agricultural uses, including treated seeds and nursery applications, that were in HB6916. That is the bill that moved forward to a vote in May 2025. Just before the Senate vote, the bill was further weakened by removal of restrictions on non-agricultural ornamental landscaping. The bill banning only use on turf grass is what passed.

Connecticut Audubon has spoken out against the removal of ornamental trees and shrubs from the bill as birds are most affected by uses in these areas. We also know there are neonics at harmful levels in Connecticut's rivers, see below.

This law will help, but may not be strong enough to fully protect our environment.

Reasons to Support Connecticut Regulations on Neonicotinoid (Neonics) Insecticides

Evidence of Neonic Contamination in Connecticut

United States Geological Survey (USGS) data show harmful levels of neonics in Connecticut’s water.

In 2016, 76 of 155 surface water samples exceeded safe benchmarks for aquatic life in a statewide survey.
Norwalk River: Over 50% of samples have shown high neonic levels since 2013.
Frequency of detection of imidacloprid and concentrations of imidacloprid are increasing over time.

2024 Pollinator Pathway, Inc funded water quality data collected from streams in Fairfield County near hotspots for turfgrass use.

Neonics detected in 31/50 samples, all exceeded safe benchmarks for aquatic life.

UConn released a report in January 2025, Neonics in Connecticut Waters, compiling and assessing the data above.

EPA and USGS Findings on Neonicotinoid Harm

The EPA’s Biological Evaluations show that common neonics—clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam—pose significant risks to over 1,300 listed and endangered species.

Clothianidin: Likely harms 67% of 1700 listed species and 56% of critical habitats.
Imidacloprid: Likely harms 79% of species and 83% of critical habitats.
Thiamethoxam: Likely harms 77% of species and 81% of critical habitats.

USGS study indicates that neonicotinoid mixtures pose greater than expected risks to stream health.

However, Federal Limitations in Pesticide Regulation according to EPA Persist:

The Agency has had trouble meeting its obligations for the thousands of pesticide actions it completes annually under FIFRA. The entire process can take 6-12 years for a single pesticide. (1)

The Agency has met those obligations for less than 5% of the thousands of pesticide actions it completes annually under FIFRA, creating legal vulnerabilities, the potential for adverse impacts to listed species, and uncertainty for farmers and other pesticide users (2)

Its resources limit the agency’s ability to assess pesticide impacts to listed species and their habitat. (3) (4) (5)

EPA's Insecticide Strategy does not address non-agricultural uses of neonics, such as on turfgrass and ornamentals, which can contribute substantially to environmental contamination.
In 2020 EPA advised homeowners not to use neonicotinoids and proposed a ban on the use of imidacloprid on residential lawns and turf that has not yet been established.
Due to an exploited loophole, EPA does not currently recognize seed treatments as pesticides. As such, the estimated 95% of the insecticide coating that leaches into the soil and washed into our waterways is not monitored or regulated.

CT Agricultural Experiment Station (CAES) Support for Restrictions in Agricultural Use

Richard Cowles, PhD CAES supports further restrictions to the use of neonics on row crops, such as corn, soybean, rapeseed.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for Lawns

Jason Henderson, University of Connecticut Professor of Turfgrass and Soil Sciences: EPA Encourages Integrated Pest Management. IPM prioritizes non-chemical pest controls on lawns and promotes safer, targeted pesticide use only when needed. This reduces reliance on harmful pesticides, aligns with environmental goals, and supports safer pest management in various applications, including lawns and turf.

Industry Interests

$20-60Million spent on seed application each year

4 major producers: Syngenta ($10.7B), Bayer ($10.6B), Cortuva ($6.2B), BASF ($6.0B) annual revenues for pest division. They are purchasing seed companies to assure their product is applied to seed, limiting seed choices for farmers.

-180-200M acres of soybean and corn planted each year across USA, 95-98% of corn has neonic applied, 40-50% conservative estimate for soybean application

For a Summary of the 2025 Proposed Bill read more here. Supporting the Proposed Bill would protect Conmecticut’s natural resources from neonics’ harmful impacts on ecosystems and water quality.

EPA Quotes:

Its resources limit the agency’s ability to assess pesticide impacts to listed species and their habitat.
“In past decades, the Agency has had trouble meeting its Section 7(a)(2) obligations for the thousands of pesticide actions it completes annually under FIFRA. The entire process, including consulting with the Services to implement protections they determine are necessary through biological opinions, can take years for a single pesticide.”
“EPA’s traditional chemical-by-chemical, species-by-species approach to meeting these obligations has been slow and costly, with ESA work on each pesticide typically taking many years to complete. As a result, EPA has completed its ESA obligations for less than 5% of its actions, creating legal vulnerabilities, the potential for adverse impacts to listed species, and uncertainty for farmers and other pesticide users that use many pesticides.”
In past decades, the Agency has met those obligations for less than 5% of the thousands of pesticide actions it completes annually under FIFRA).
EPA’s Pesticide Program has been unable to keep pace with its ESA workload, resulting not only in inadequate protections for listed species but also litigation against the Agency that has increased in frequency in recent years.