{"id":41718,"date":"2026-06-02T00:01:29","date_gmt":"2026-06-02T04:01:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=41718"},"modified":"2026-05-29T11:50:41","modified_gmt":"2026-05-29T15:50:41","slug":"organic-solution-to-pesticide-pollution-embraced-across-political-parties-in-recent-action","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2026\/06\/organic-solution-to-pesticide-pollution-embraced-across-political-parties-in-recent-action\/","title":{"rendered":"Organic Solution to Pesticide Pollution Embraced Across Political Parties in Recent Action"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, June 2, 2026) \u201cShow me what democracy looks like; this is what democracy looks like\u201d is a common chant at rallies across the United States and worldwide when people come out to express their outrage at the complacency of the political system to address current societal hardships and inequities. On the eve of the 250th<\/sup> anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the state of U.S. politics has become especially divisive and polarized. One area of agreement, however, that continues to break through the fractious political climate was on display recently in South Carolina, when the state\u2019s House of Representatives unanimously passed a House Resolution encouraging local communities to transition to organic land management across the state earlier this spring. This action serves as one signal among many of widespread agreement that the protection of people and the environment from pesticides has bipartisan support.<\/p>\n

Passed in March, H.5305<\/a> was introduced by William G. “Bill” Herbkersman (R) and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of over 100 House members. State Representative Herbkersman is chair of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee. The Resolution seeks to \u201cencourage counties, municipalities, and other political subdivisions of the State, including school districts\u201d to establish the adoption of organic practices as a priority. While falling far short of a mandate, environmental and public health advocates view this as a foundational shift in the right direction toward building broader momentum for the transition to pest management in sync with biodiversity, public health, climate resilience, and prosperity, rather than actively undermining these critical pillars of American society.<\/p>\n

The Resolution begins with a recognition that there is a shared public good in ensuring safe shared community spaces, stating, \u201cSouth Carolina’s public lands, parks, roadside corridors, and waterways are shared community assets.\u201d The Resolution continues, \u201cRoutine synthetic pesticide and herbicide applications create avoidable exposure pathways for residents, workers, and wildlife, and increase stormwater and watershed risks.\u201d Additionally, it says: \u201cThe use of organic practices can help create and maintain healthy landscapes and ecosystems while reducing chemical dependence.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Resolution emphasizes the public health and environmental risks of pesticides, the stewardship opportunity and examples of local ordinances in other contexts, and the benefits of organic practices. Also identified are local ecological concerns, including monarch butterfly and honey bee populations facing pesticide and chemical pressures, in addition to growing community demand for safer pest management on parks and playing fields, athletic fields, and rights-of-way.<\/p>\n

The Resolution expresses bipartisan solidarity for pesticide accountability, similar to a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives in April that struck from the House Agriculture Committee-passed Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026<\/em><\/a> provisions weakening protections from toxic pesticides, with 73 Republicans representing 25 states joining with Democrats. See here<\/a> for a vote tally on the amendment introduced by U.S. Representative Anna Luna (R-Florida), which was identical to the Protect Our Health Amendment<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>introduced by Representative Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) and Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine).<\/p>\n

Model Policies<\/h2>\n

Most states have explicitly preempted local governments from restricting pesticides on both private and public lands at the behest of the chemical industry after the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Mortier<\/em><\/strong><\/a> (1991) (see court decision<\/strong><\/a>) upheld the right of local jurisdictions to restrict pesticides under federal pesticide law. This does not stop local and state governments from banning or regulating pesticides on public land, as advocates have successfully organized to adopt ordinances across the United States, including New York City, New York<\/a>; Maui, Hawai\u2019i<\/a>; Stamford, Connecticut<\/a>; and Montgomery County<\/a> and Baltimore, Maryland<\/a>, among numerous others. The ordinances embrace organic management standards and allowed materials under relevant sections of the Organic Foods Production Act<\/em> (OFPA),<\/p>\n

One model policy that advocates point to includes various local ordinances in Maine, including the coastal town of Falmouth. Maine does not preempt the authority of local political subdivisions from restricting pesticides more stringently than the state. Several years after the adoption of the original lawn care ordinance<\/strong><\/a> in Falmouth, Maine (2020), the town\u2019s Conservation Commission studied the issues, the Town Council held hearings, and public input was collected, leading to the town\u2019s adoption of a stronger ordinance<\/strong><\/a> with an effective date that was later extended to 2026. See here<\/strong><\/a> for the testimony of Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, delivered to the town council of Falmouth at an April 2024 hearing. This followed landmark policy adopted first in South Portland and then in Portland, Maine.<\/p>\n

The updated Falmouth ordinance, like the ones in South Portland and Portland, embraces the core purpose of protecting health and the environment, while extending the ordinance\u2019s restrictions to all petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer users (residents, commercial groups, and licensed applicators).<\/p>\n

The model ordinance is explicit in restricting substances to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances in OFPA and updated by the National Organic Standards Board. Synthetic substances are banned under OFPA unless they are listed on the National List. For example, the bee-toxic neonicotinoid insecticides, always highly toxic to ecosystems and human health, are prohibited under OFPA\u2019s allowed and prohibited list. For additional information on Falmouth, Maine, please see the following Daily News<\/em>, Community Votes Down Ballot Initiative To Repeal Local Pesticide Restrictions in Maine<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

In Massachusetts, as distinguished from Maine, there is a circuitous (some would argue undemocratic) process for local communities to pass ordinances on private and public lands. Four towns\u2014Orleans<\/strong><\/a>, Wellfleet<\/strong><\/a>, Truro<\/strong><\/a>, and Eastham<\/strong><\/a>\u2014 have passed local ordinances; however, the home rule petition process<\/strong><\/a> prevents these common-sense protections from going into effect until both chambers of the legislature approve the measures. On many matters, ranging from the incorporation of a new fire department, establishing a real estate transfer fee for local properties, or prohibiting the use of a pesticide that is not prohibited statewide, actions of local governments\u2014after voting on a measure by the locality\u2019s governing body\u2014must go through review by the State Attorney General\u2019s office and both chambers of the state legislature before becoming local law.<\/p>\n

For our model ordinance in Massachusetts, please see here<\/a>. If you are a Massachusetts resident, take action<\/a> to pass a local ordinance in your town.<\/p>\n

Previous Coverage<\/h2>\n

The core criteria of organic land management, as defined by the Organic Foods Production Act<\/em> (OFPA), are sixfold:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Definition clarity and enforceability;<\/li>\n
  2. Creation of a Systems plan to establish a baseline for pest management practices<\/li>\n
  3. Rigorous standard for allowed\/prohibited substances list;<\/li>\n
  4. Certification and enforcement system (third-party enforcement);<\/li>\n
  5. Bi-annual Public Comment Process<\/li>\n
  6. Funding<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In the agricultural context, the Rodale Institute determined significant benefits of organic versus conventional agriculture (See Daily News <\/em>here<\/a> and here<\/a>):<\/p>\n