[T]he House Agriculture Committee on Tuesday declined to ban the use on ornamental plants of a pesticide known to harm bees, but agreed instead to further study of the issue.
The bill, H. 915, also minus the ban on the use of neonicotinoids on ornamental plants, was approved on a unanimous vote in the Senate last week.
The bill, which now heads for reconciliation between the House and Senate versions, contains a requirement that seed dealers offer their clients in Vermont seeds that are not pre-treated with the pesticide — a common practice. The bill also calls for public service announcements warning of the potential harm to pollinators from using neonicotinoids.
The European Union’s member states voted on April 27 in favor of a complete ban of the outdoor agricultural use of the pesticide.
If the ban were enacted in Vermont it would prevent the release of as much as 15,000 pounds of the pesticide annually in Vermont, said Judy Bellairs, co-chair of the Sierra Club’s pollinator team.
Vermont farmers apply a further 8,000 pounds of neonicotinoids each year in the form of pre-treated seeds, said Cary Giguere, Agrichemical Program manager at the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets.
Members of the House Agriculture Committee opposed the limited neonicotinoid ban in H.915 on several grounds, including that it bans only the use of the chemicals but not their sale, an arrangement that Giguere said would easily overwhelm the Agency of Agriculture’s enforcement ability.
“You’re extending our enforcement authority to activity that homeowners do, which is beyond the scope of having four [pesticide officers] in the state,” Giguere said. “Four people can handle 1,000 commercial applicators … but when you extend that to every backyard lawn warrior, we need more than four people to do it.”
Neonicotinoids are widely sold in the state, Giguere said. They are known to be effective against the emerald ash borer, an invasive beetle newly identified in Vermont and a major threat to the state’s ash trees.
Agriculture committee chair Carolyn Partridge, D-Windham, noted on Tuesday that the committee hadn’t taken testimony from the companies that use the pesticide on their ornamental plans.
The study would be directed by the state agriculture agency, and it would be conducted “by independently reviewing claims of pollinator losses by beekeepers” to determine what caused the losses and whether they were associated with neonicotinoid-treated seeds.
That study differs from the hundreds already completed in that it will assess, among other things, the effects of neonicotinoids on wild bee populations, Giguere said.
That study will determine whether the state should institute special management practices for neonicotinoid pesticides, Giguere said. The study also would “establish a baseline” on various pollinator species currently living within state borders, he said.
In this respect it’s a very important piece of legislation, Giguere said.
The Sierra Club’s Bellairs said further study of neonicotinoids would be a waste of time and resources.
“Why should Vermont be any different than anywhere else where neonicotinoids are a problem? There’s so much evidence out there, and so many other countries taking action — we really need to do more than a study and PSAs,” she said.
Even if H.915 is adopted, meaningful reform is unlikely this year, said Bellairs, who has been working on the issue for eight years. “I’m going to keep working on it,” she said.
Correction: Judy Bellairs first name has been corrected.
