{"id":39718,"date":"2025-10-02T00:01:18","date_gmt":"2025-10-02T04:01:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=39718"},"modified":"2025-10-30T11:37:50","modified_gmt":"2025-10-30T15:37:50","slug":"with-state-legislation-focused-on-restricting-bee-killing-pesticides-advocates-call-for-organic-transition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2025\/10\/with-state-legislation-focused-on-restricting-bee-killing-pesticides-advocates-call-for-organic-transition\/","title":{"rendered":"With State Legislation Focused on Restricting Bee-Killing Pesticides, Advocates Call for Organic Transition"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, October 2, 2025) This year marks an advancement of various state-level neonicotinoid laws and regulations, including in Maine, Vermont, and Connecticut\u2014emphasizing surging public support for pesticide reforms.<\/p>\n

The Maine legislature passed, and Governor Janet Mills (D-ME) signed into law on July 22, 2025, LD 1323<\/a>, which commissions the Board of Pesticide Control to study the impacts of neonicotinoids and neonicotinoid-treated seeds, which advocates hope will help advance future legislation to prohibit the use, distribution, and sale of neonicotinoid insecticide products. Meanwhile, after years of grassroots advocacy, the Connecticut legislature advanced, and Governor Ned Lamont (D-CT) signed SB 9<\/a> into law, which will partially restrict the nonagricultural use of neonicotinoids on turfgrass, starting in 2027. There was a more comprehensive effort that failed to move forward (HB 6916<\/a>), which would have gone further by restricting or prohibiting the use of neonicotinoids on trees, shrubs, and treated seeds (see here<\/a> for Beyond Pesticides comments).<\/p>\n

Maine<\/a> and Connecticut<\/a> join eleven other states (California<\/a>, Nevada<\/a>, New Jersey<\/a>, Massachusetts<\/a>, Maryland<\/a>, Minnesota<\/a>, New York<\/a>, and Vermont<\/a>) in taking steps to restrict or prohibit the use of neonicotinoids. (See Daily News <\/em>here<\/a>.) Whether it is a campaign to ban glyphosate<\/a>, paraquat<\/a>, chlorpyrifos<\/a>, atrazine<\/a>, or any of the hundreds of individual active ingredients registered with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), environmental and public health advocates grow concerned that the whack-a-mole approach to pesticide reform fails to meet the moment of cascading crisis on stability of planetary boundaries, including public health, biodiversity, and climate resilience.<\/p>\n

Maine<\/h2>\n

The original Maine legislation had four fundamental changes to neonicotinoid restrictions in the state, which unfortunately did not make it into the final bill:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Crop-specific bans for outdoor applications for crops \u201cduring bloom.\u201d There is also a prohibition of post-bloom use on leafy vegetables, brassicas, bulb vegetables, herbs and spices, and stalk\/stem\/leaf petiole vegetables. The ban is also extended to soybean and cereal grains (all these stipulations are subject to “emergency” exemptions (discussed below). This would have gone into effect on January 1, 2026.<\/li>\n
  2. Bans the sale, distribution, or use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds for soybeans and cereal grain. This would have gone into effect on January 1, 2026.<\/li>\n
  3. Similar to New York and Vermont, there is an exemption process where the Commissioner of Agriculture can issue exemptions based on \u201cagricultural\u201d or \u201cenvironmental\u201d emergencies for the use of neonicotinoids once this law goes into effect. To be eligible for exemption, farmers are required to go through integrated pest management training, conduct a pest risk assessment, and maintain use records for treated seeds (if approved). Exemption orders do not last longer than a year, and they are specific to a certain geographical area, \u201cwhich may include specific farms, fields or properties.\u201d<\/li>\n
  4. Exemption orders would be reported to the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry, mirroring Vermont\u2019s approach but distinguishing itself from New York\u2019s failure to incorporate this specific measure for accountability. (See Daily News <\/em>here<\/a>.)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The bill, as passed, will require the Board of Pesticide Control to study the impacts of neonicotinoid-treated seeds and neonicotinoids broadly on public health and pollinator health. The Board is required to submit a preliminary report by January 15, 2026, to the Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry; a final report with recommendations is due by January 15, 2027. (Learn more here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

    Before this law, Maine had already taken a leadership role by eliminating all outdoor (nonagricultural) uses of these chemicals, even by lawn care companies, back in 2021. (See Daily News <\/em>here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

    There is a grassroots movement across the state that is not only standing up for community health but also actively defending local laws against industry influence and public complacency. Just earlier this year, the South Portland City Council was considering an exemption for their municipal pesticide and fertilizer ordinance to permit the use of the diamide insecticide chlorantraniliprole<\/a>\/acelepryn to address issues of grub control. A campaign to reject the waiver was led by Avery Yale Kamila, cofounder of Portland Protectors, and supported<\/a> by Beyond Pesticides. The proposed change was soundly defeated on Monday, March 3, 2025, after public engagement and a near-unanimous city council vote [6-1 vote]. The adoption of the Portland pesticide ordinance followed the adoption of similar laws in Ogunquit<\/a>, neighboring South Portland<\/a>, and other jurisdictions like the City of Takoma Park<\/a> and Montgomery County<\/a>, both in Maryland. Thirty-four jurisdictions<\/a> throughout Maine have restricted pesticides, including on public and private property (See Daily News <\/em>here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

    Connecticut<\/h2>\n

    The Connecticut legislation (both SB 9, which passed, and HB 6916, which did not) fails to address the broad scope of pesticide contamination across agricultural and non-agricultural uses; more concerning, however, is the failure to incentivize a transition to organic land management. In testimony, Beyond Pesticides lays out four main changes it says are needed for a neonicotinoid (or any individual or class of pesticides) prohibition in legislation:<\/p>\n