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 500,000 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. We will work with them in 2026 to build on our momentum!

__________________________________________________________________________

In January the legislature has raised the bill HB6916 An Act Concerning the Use of Neonicotinoids. This bill is 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.

Language restricting some non-agricultural uses of neonics was also added to Senate Bill 9 and that is the language we are now supporting.

The neonics language in SB9 represents a meaningful step toward protecting pollinators, safeguarding water quality, and supporting healthier communities. Advocates have already made significant compromises to move forward—including the removal of all agricultural uses, including treated seeds and nursery applications, that were in HB6916.

To maintain the bill’s integrity and impact, we urge lawmakers to move SB9 forward without any more carve-outs that would weaken its core protections. Our legislators are working to protect pollinators, kids, and communities, however the pesticide industry is powerful and is exerting pressure to oppose, weaken and/or corrupt the bill with changes to the language.

Opposition lobbyists are pushing to remove ornamental landscaping–i.e. gardens, shrubs, and trees-- from SB9, leaving only a restriction on grass. Connecticut Audubon has spoken out against this change as birds are most affected by uses in these areas. Such a weakening of the bill would continue to allow uses harming pollinators, birds, healthy rivers and people.
The opposition is also pushing to add a provision to the bill that would allow an exception to the 15-year ban on pesticide use on k-8 school grounds for the systemic insecticide, chlorantraniliprole. The Connecticut school grounds ban is one of the strongest in the nation. Rolling it back would put children’s health at risk.

The pesticide industry’s priority is to make profits not protect people, so it is up to advocates and lawmakers to ensure that public health and the environment come first. Dr. Sarah Evans, an expert on the impacts of early life environmental exposures on nervous system development and child behavior at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, strongly opposes making the proposed exception to Connecticut’s law protecting school grounds from registered pesticides. She states:

1. Children are not little adults. They experience higher exposures to pesticide chemicals due to their proximity the ground, tendency to put their hands in their mouths, higher breathing rates, and dietary habits. Their rapidly developing organ systems are more susceptible to disruption and they have more future years of life over which chronic diseases associated with pesticide exposures can develop.

Bearer, CF. The special and unique vulnerability of children to environmental hazards. Neurotoxicology 21:925-934, 2000.

American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement on Pesticides:

Roberts JR and Karr CJ; Council On Environmental Health. Pesticide exposure in children. Pediatrics. 2012 Dec;130(6):e1765-88. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-2758. PMID: 2318410.https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/6/e1765/30343/Pesticide-Exposure-in-Children

2. When we consider chemical exposures and children’s health, it’s important to weigh the risks of exposure against the benefits. To date, no data has been presented to demonstrate a risk to children’s health under the current K-8 restrictions that would justify weakening the law by permitting use of chlorantraniliprole.

3. There is a history of regrettable substitutions from the pesticide industry from organochlorines (e.g. DDT) to organophosphates (e.g. chlorpyrifos) and carbamates (e.g. carbaryl), to pyrethroids (e.g. resmethrin) to neonics (e.g. imidacloprid). Initial EPA review deemed all of these to be of low risk to human health and the environment, permitting widespread agricultural and residential application. Each in turn was shown by epidemiological studies to be harmful to human health and are linked to increased risk of cancer and neurotoxicity.

4. Few studies have been conducted in mammals to assess the risk of chlorantraniliprole exposure. No epidemiological studies have been conducted in humans to assess exposure levels in the general population or associated health risks. Additional studies are needed to assess safety of this product in areas where children play.

Maertens et al. Avoiding Regrettable Substitutions: Green Toxicology for Sustainable Chemistry. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 2021 Jun 1;9(23):7749–7758. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c09435

5. There is a biological mechanism by which chlorantraniliprole may impact human health. This compound has been shown to bind to the ion channel ryanodine receptor, RyR1 in mammals. RyR receptor disruption has been associated with heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias, skeletal myopathies, diabetes, and neurodegenerative diseases.

Chen et al. The insecticide chlorantraniliprole is a weak activator of mammalian skeletal ryanodine receptor/Ca2+ release channel. Biochem Biophys Res Commun PMID: 2019 Jan 8;508(2):633-639. 30527809 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2018.11.180

Kushnir et al. Ryanodine receptor dysfunction in human disorders. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Molecular Cell Research. Volume 1865, Issue 11, Part B, November 2018, Pages 1687-1697.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamcr.2018.07.011

6. Recent rodent studies not considered in the EPA human health risk assessments for chlorantraniliprole show that this compound may impact the brain and interfere with fetal development. Kimura et al. found increased anxiety and changes in brain neuronal activity following treatment of mice with chlorantriprole, suggesting impacts on the mammalian brain. Omar et al. found that administration of chlorantraniliprole to pregnant rats resulted in DNA damage, fetal growth retardation, malformations, and death. These rodent studies warrant further investigation into chlorantraniliprole impacts on human health.

Kimura et al. Neurotoxicity and behavioral disorders induced in mice by acute exposure to the diamide insecticide chlorantraniliprole. J Vet Med Sci. 2023 Feb 28;85(4):497–506. doi: 10.1292/jvms.23-0041

Omar et al. Impact of intrauterine exposure to the insecticide coragen on the developmental and genetic toxicity in female albino rats. Egyptian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences Volume 9, 2022 - Issue 1 Pages 23-42 https://doi.org/10.1080/2314808X.2021.2013623

7. EPA studies to assess the health risks of pesticide exposure consider only the active ingredient. However, studies find that exposure to inert ingredients or the fully formulated product can have greater impacts on health than the active ingredient alone. This has been shown for the pyrethroid synergist piperonyl butoxide, which is associated with increased risk of respiratory and behavioral problems in children as well as impaired male reproduction. In addition, studies find that the full formulation of RoundUp is more toxic to the developing reproductive system than the active ingredient RoundUp alone. Other harmful chemicals in many pesticide formulations include PFAS chemicals, pervasive environmental contaminants that are linked to cancer, and phthalates, which disrupt hormones and are linked to many adverse health outcomes.

PBO Studies:

Horton et al. Impact of prenatal exposure to piperonyl butoxide and permethrin on 36-month neurodevelopment. Pediatrics. 2011 Mar; 127(3):e699-706. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2010-0133

Liu B et al. Prenatal exposure to pesticide ingredient piperonyl butoxide and childhood cough in an urban cohort. Environ Int. 2012 Nov 1;48:156-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2012.07.009

Bae et al. Piperonyl butoxide, a synergist of pesticides can elicit male-mediated reproductive toxicity. Reprod Toxicol. 2021 Mar;100:120-125. DOI: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2021.01.010

RoundUp Formulation Rodent Studies:

Mesnage et al. Glyphosate and its formulations Roundup Bioflow and RangerPro alter bacterial and fungal community composition in the rat caecum microbiome

Front Microbiol. 2022 Oct 5: 13:888853 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.888853

Lesseur C. Maternal urinary levels of glyphosate during pregnancy and anogenital distance in newborns in a US multicenter pregnancy cohort. Environ Pollut. 2021 July 1;280:117002. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117002

PFAS

Donley et al. Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment. Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 132, Issue 7. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP13954

Phthalates

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-08/documents/phthalates_updates_live_file_508_0.pdf

Common Concerns about HB6916 An Act Concerning the Use of Neonicotinoids

“Removing neonics takes a tool out of the toolbox for landscapers and farmers.” HB 6916 provides DEEP the authority to grant emergency exemptions for use against pests, including invasive insects, that threaten human health or the environment. For the seeds portion, the bill provides that farmers can request a waiver for use when merited by the presence of pest pressure. This part of the bill effectively keeps the tool in the toolbox for users.
"Imidacloprid is needed for use on eastern hemlocks to treat for woolly adelgid and other potential threats by invasive insects.” Again, the bill grants power to DEEP in consultation with CAES to determine when an emergency waiver is needed for an invasive pest. No request by an individual or group is required. As the bill is written, an exemption for use on woolly adelgid could be exercised right away.
“Use on orchards or pumpkins will be affected.” No agricultural uses other than on corn, soybean, wheat and outdoor uses on ornamental plants are affected by this bill. The bill does not affect orchards, for example, or any growers of fruits or vegetables.
“Indoor uses, veterinary uses, treatment for wood will be affected.” Uses on wood or foundations, indoor uses, uses for veterinary purposes, or any other such uses that are not mentioned in the bill are not affected by it.
“Seed prices will increase for farmers and/or they won’t be able to find seed without neonic treatments.” To address this concern, we can look to Quebec which banned the use of neonic-treated row crop seed in 2019. Since Quebec farmers have individual contracts with seed companies, seed prices are not generally published. However, in conversations with farmers in Quebec and the seed dealers Dekalb (Bayer) and Pioneer (Corteva), the two largest seed conglomerates in the world, Quebec Agronomist, Louis Robert, reports:

A bag of corn seed generally costs between about CAD 360 and CAD 370. Farmers who purchase insecticide-free seed save between CAD 5 and CAD 10. So, it's not a significant savings, but prices certainly haven't increased.

Louis's account corroborates what conventional farmers from Quebec explained during a farmer panel last year in Vermont. Here's the key exchange, beginning at 53:40, where those farmers are talking about access to seeds and price.

Renaud (Farmer): “Don’t be fooled because all the seed suppliers can turn around quickly and provide insecticide free seed in no time actually. There are a lot of marketing strategies to scare people that they need to use neonics, but you shouldn't be bothered with that. They can turn around pretty quickly and provide insecticide free seed. . . . It’s never more expensive to use non-treated seed. But depending on the company, sometimes there’s no difference in cost. But most of the time you’ll see a cost advantage of $10-20 per bag.”
Francis (Farmer): “ We started like ten years ago. At the beginning it was harder to get non-treated seeds; we had to ask the dealer to get it. For grain corn was easy, but for silage corn it was hard so we started using untreated seed for silage about 4 or 5 years [ago] because it was not available; but for 2024 we didn’t ask the dealer and he just asked us if we wanted treated or not treated. So it was pretty easy. . . For my farm it’s around $10-20 less per bag Canadian. So it’s cheaper.”
Stephane (Farmer): Louis Robert translates: “He’s saying that he did not have huge problems with sourcing seed without insecticide as long as you put your order early on in the season in the fall then you will not have any problem with getting the seed you need.”

6. "Replant guarantees could be lost.” The big three seed companies working in Quebec provide the same replant guarantee on all their corn seeds. It doesn't matter whether the seeds are treated with an insecticide. This includes Dekalb (Bayer) and Pioneer (Corteva). Unfortunately, these guarantees don't appear to be memorialized in formal documents. Quebec agronomist Louis Robert described replant guarantees as sufficiently solid that seed representatives and farmers don't seem to discuss them much.

Louis Robert is available to discuss the experiences of farmers in Quebec. Please email me at info@norwalkriver.org and I will arrange a call.

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:

“Of all the uses of neonics, coating of seeds planted on large acreages (corn, rapeseed, soybean) are the most objectionable. It is equivalent to baiting birds with poison bait.”
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.