Ag Panel Backs Science-Based Farming

WASHINGTON (DTN) -- The House Agriculture Committee on Tuesday held a 3.5-hour hearing that addressed both the statements by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about crop protection tools and legislation that could ease the development of new tools to protect crops from disease and insects.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn "GT" Thompson, R-Pa., praised the scientific breakthroughs of the past and touted science-based regulation and the need to help innovators, but left to others the criticism of Kennedy and the Make America Healthy Again Commission's disapproval of the use of herbicides and pesticides. In a closing statement, Thompson praised Kennedy for the Food and Drug Administration's recent approval of a medication for poultry.

Thompson has privately acknowledged the committee's limited ability to deal with these issues because it does not have jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection Agency.

"Today, thanks to decades of investment in agricultural innovation and the tireless efforts of our producers, the United States is home to the most abundant, affordable and safest food supply in the world," Thompson said in his opening statement. "We should be proud of that legacy. But we should also recognize that sustaining it will require us to remain forward-looking and focused on reducing the barriers that stand in the way of continued innovation.

"For these promising new tools to reach the farm gate and ultimately benefit consumers, rural economies, and the environment, we must have a regulatory environment that is grounded in science, transparent in its decision-making, and predictable in its timelines and outcomes.

"When innovators face confusion about which agency has jurisdiction, or when reviews take years with no clear rationale, or when litigation is used as a tool to block technologies that have already been proven safe, we lose more than just time. We lose investment and competitiveness. And we risk falling behind global competitors who are moving faster to deploy the tools of tomorrow."

Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., ranking member on the committee, said she is "concerned with so many of the comments and actions coming out of the current administration that seem designed to undermine people's confidence in our regulatory system, attack innovation taking place on our farms and make it harder for family farmers to do their jobs.

"Take, for example, the MAHA Commission Report, which was riddled with errors and cited non-existent 'studies.' Errors and misinformation like these have consequences. It undermines Americans' trust in the food we eat and attacks farmers for the work they do.

"Secretary Kennedy's disregard for science and perversion of facts and data is dangerous, erodes confidence in our public health and regulatory systems, and dissuades talented scientists from joining the civil service.

"The Environmental Protection Agency has also begun to move backward with the haphazard firing of technical staff and scientists responsible for properly assessing new chemicals and technologies and their impact on our people, food and the environment. This work requires talented toxicologists, chemists and other scientists who collaborate with industry and advocacy groups to protect the environment while ensuring farmers have access to the tools they need.

"This uncertainty isn't just bad for the agency and American citizens that rely on the government to protect their health and the environment, it's bad for business," Craig said. "Innovative products that could have come to market will be stalled in the pipeline as review times get even worse."

While Republican committee members and most Democrats stressed support for the continued use of pesticides and herbicides, a few took different positions.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said that the hearing was designed "to make us all look like we are on the same page," but that he is worried Republicans want to pursue the deregulation of toxic pesticides.

Rep. Alma Adams, D-N.C., also said she is worried that an Environmental Protection Agency rule means that farmers no longer must record information on the use of restricted pesticides.

Terry Abbott, chairman of the Council of Producers & Distributors of Agrotechnology (CPDA) and senior product portfolio manager of Adjuvants Unlimited, was the most outspoken witness regarding the MAHA report.

Abbott called the U.S. pesticide regulatory system "rigorous," but said, "Unfortunately, the integrity of this system is being challenged by recent narratives that rely on emotion, misinformation, and flawed analysis. The MAHA Commission's initial report undermines trust in the regulatory process by citing unverifiable sources, omitting key stakeholder voices including farmers, food producers, and scientists, and making sweeping claims not grounded in the science or structure of the current system. Public discourse driven by such narratives risks weakening regulatory confidence and undermining evidence-based policymaking."

Abbott also said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has taken steps to speed up regulatory reviews, but that "the registration backlog, though showing signs of stabilization" still affects hundreds of pending actions. Abbott said his group supports full funding for EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs and directing USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service to update conservation practice standards to reflect current adjuvant and application technologies. CPDA supports increased federal investment in applied research and demonstration projects through Land Grant Universities and regional Centers of Excellence.

Don Cameron, vice president of Terranova Ranch in Helm, California, who is both a conventional and organic producer of specialty crops, said, "To ensure my livelihood and that food arrives at your grocery store, restaurants, and schools, I must protect my crops from pests and disease. I can assure you, with all the costs of doing business and its associated regulatory burdens, farmers don't have slush funds to waste on crop inputs that are not necessary. We look for ways to minimize what we use, which is how we have always handled the issue of crop protection.

"As a farmer, I'm aware of consumer apprehension about the use of pesticides and, in turn, retail grocery stores and restaurants who have been sensitized to the issue. As a father and grandfather, I am sympathetic to consumer concerns when hearing about pesticides in the media. I would like to note that the most extreme version of stories often gets the most attention, so I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue and how we can best support farmers and provide consumers with access to fresh, affordable, and safe food."

In an interview, Cameron noted that he is engaged in both conventional and organic production and that organic farming is much more difficult even though there are some crop protection chemicals allowed under USDA's organic production standards.

"In today's culture, where shoppers often bypass slightly blemished produce in favor of perfect-looking fruits and vegetables, the pressure on farmers to deliver flawless crops is immense," Cameron said. "To support both consumer expectations and public health goals centered around nutritious diets, a full range of innovative crop protection tools, including pesticides, is essential to ensure the reliable production of appealing, high-quality fresh produce."

Karl Wyant, director of agronomy at Nutrien, emphasized the importance of plant biostimulants. Wyant described biostimulants as "a class of crop inputs that include substances such as humic acids, seaweed extracts, beneficial microbials, and protein hydrolysates. These work differently than fertilizers, which provide nutrients directly to the plant and are responsible for supporting 50% of modern crop yield potential, and are distinct from pesticides, which help protect the plant from harmful pests and disease. Uniquely, biostimulants work by enhancing the plant's or the soil's natural processes, boosting nutrient release and uptake, improving stress tolerance to heat and cold, and supporting overall plant and soil health."

But Wyant said biostimulants lack a federal definition, which makes them subject to "inconsistency in evidence-based, regulatory qualification standards, and the risk of misclassification under federal laws like the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), remains." He added that "biostimulants may be wrongly treated as pesticides or plant growth regulators -- delaying innovation, adding unnecessary costs, and creating compliance uncertainty by our state fertilizer regulatory partners."

Wyant said the bipartisan Plant Biostimulant Act of 2025, introduced by Reps. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif.; and Jim Baird, R-Ind.; and Sens. Roger Marshall, R-Kan.; and Alex Padilla, D-Calif., would establish a science-based federal definition of "plant biostimulant," aligned with international plant nutrition standards already recognized in the European Union, Canada, and other countries.

To view the full hearing, visit https://www.youtube.com/….

Jerry Hagstrom can be reached at jhagstrom@nationaljournal.com

Follow him on social platform X @hagstromreport

(c) Copyright 2025 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.