02
Oct
With State Legislation Focused on Restricting Bee-Killing Pesticides, Advocates Call for Organic Transition
(Beyond Pesticides, October 2, 2025) This year marks an advancement of various state-level neonicotinoid laws and regulations, including in Maine, Vermont, and Connecticut—emphasizing surging public support for pesticide reforms.
The Maine legislature passed, and Governor Janet Mills (D-ME) signed into law on July 22, 2025, LD 1323, which advances the state’s neonicotinoid laws to prohibit the use, distribution, and sale of neonicotinoid insecticide products—going a step further than most states in terms of prohibiting neonic-coated seeds for soybeans and cereal crops (with exemptions). Meanwhile, after years of grassroots advocacy, the Connecticut legislature advanced, and Governor Ned Lamont (D-CT) signed into law SB 9, which will partially restrict the nonagricultural use of neonicotinoids on turf grass, starting in 2027. There was a more comprehensive effort that failed to move forward (HB 6916), which would have gone further by restricting or prohibiting the use of neonicotinoids on trees, shrubs, and treated seeds (see here for Beyond Pesticides comments).
Maine and Connecticut join eleven other states (California, Nevada, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, and Vermont) in restricting or prohibiting the use of neonicotinoids. (See Daily News here.) Whether it is a campaign to ban glyphosate, paraquat, chlorpyrifos, atrazine, 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.
Maine
The recent Maine legislation has four fundamental changes to neonicotinoid restrictions in the state:
- Crop-specific bans for outdoor applications for crops “during bloom.†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 will go into effect on January 1, 2026.
- Bans the sale, distribution, or use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds for soybeans and cereal grain, making Maine the third state, after Vermont and New York. This will also go into effect on January 1, 2026.
- Similar to New York and Vermont, there is an exemption process where the Commissioner of Agriculture can issue exemptions based on “agricultural†or “environmental†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, “which may include specific farms, fields or properties.â€
- Exemption orders must be reported to the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry, mirroring Vermont’s approach but distinguishing itself from New York’s failure to incorporate this specific measure for accountability. (See Daily News here.)
The law also requires 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.) 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 here.)
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/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 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, neighboring South Portland, and other jurisdictions like the City of Takoma Park and Montgomery County, both in Maryland. Thirty-four jurisdictions throughout Maine have restricted pesticides, including on public and private property (See Daily News here.)
Connecticut
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:
- To this end, the following provision in italics (below) in the bill should be stricken: Section (c) (1) The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection may issue a written order to suspend the provisions of subsection (b) of 1 of this section if the commissioner determines that: . . (C) the use of a neonicotinoid will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, including on nontarget organisms, surface water quality and groundwater quality.â€
- Similarly, the following text in italics in the same section should be stricken: “(D) no other less harmful pesticide or pest management practice will be effective to address such environmental emergency.â€
- Provision (D) should be replaced with the following language: (D): “no other pest management practice, including organic management practice with delineated allowable substances, will be effective to address such environmental emergency.â€
- The following new section should be added to define “delineated allowable substances:â€
- Natural, organic or “non-synthetic.” A substance that is derived from mineral, plant, or animal matter and does not undergo a “synthetic†process as defined in the Organic Foods Production Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6502(21), as the same may be amended from time to time.
- Pesticides determined to be “minimum risk pesticides†pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and listed in 40 C.F.R. § 152.25(f)(1) or (2), as may be amended from time to time.
Based on data collected from government sources and independent monitoring, a multidisciplinary team of researchers at the University of Connecticut finds that 46% of Connecticut waterway samples are contaminated with levels of the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid—one of the most widely used insecticides in the United States on lawn and golf courses. The authors relied on federal data from EPA and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), state-level data from Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT-DEEP), and a small-scale data collection study by the Clean Rivers Project funded by the nonprofit Pollinator Pathway, Inc. In their report, Neonicotinoids in Connecticut Waters: Surface Water, Groundwater, and Threats to Aquatic Ecosystems, the researchers provide the most comprehensive view to date of neonicotinoid levels in Connecticut and offer critical recommendations for future testing within the state and nationally, given glaring data gaps. (See Daily News here.)
Vermont
The Vermont legislature passed H.706 in June of last year—a bill that narrows and reduces the use of neonicotinoid insecticides and neonicotinoid-treated seeds. The legislature came together to override a bill vetoed by Governor Phil Scott (R). At the time of passage, there were still major questions regarding best management practices for neonicotinoids and neonicotinoid-treated seeds that would be promulgated by the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (VAAFM) moving into this year.
Beyond Pesticides submitted comments on proposed Rule 25P031, Best Management Practices for the Use of Neonicotinoid Treated Article Seeds and Neonicotinoid Pesticides, urging VAAFM to adopt the implementation of an Ecological Pest Management (EPM) or strongly defined Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program for indoor environments, and Organic Land Care (OLC) practices in the outdoor environment. The specific additions for the best management practices include the following:
- Add the definition of EPM (or Strong IPM) to include:
- “Eliminates or mitigates economic and health damage caused by pests;
- Minimizes, or eliminates to the extent possible, the use of pesticides and the risk to human health and the environment associated with pesticide applications; and, c. uses integrated methods, site or pest inspections, cultural practices, pest population monitoring, an evaluation of the need for pest control, and one or more pest management methods, including sanitation, structural repairs, cultural practices, habitat manipulation, mechanical and living biological controls, other nonchemical methods, and, if nontoxic options are unreasonable and have been exhausted, a defined set of least-toxic pesticides.â€
- Add the six EPM Program essentials, including Prevention, Identification, Monitoring, Record-Keeping, Action Levels, Tactics Criteria, and Evaluation (more details in the next section).
- Add definition for what is considered a “least-toxic pesticide†to include: a. EPA-classified minimum risk pesticides (7 CFR 205.601) and b. USDA organic certified pesticides. (40 CFR § 152.25)
- Add definition for what is not considered a “least-toxic pesticide†to include: a. An EPA-registered pesticide that is not organic certified.
As stated in the comments, it is important that the proposed rule prioritize ecological pest management practices, best defined in federal law as “organic,†as the alternative that must be assessed relative to the use of neonicotinoids and related compounds because of the numerous deficiencies in the EPA pesticide registration process on which Vermont relies for determinations of safety.
Previous Research
There continues to emerge a variety of peer-reviewed scientific literature on the human, wildlife, and ecosystems-wide impacts of neonicotinoids.
A recent study conducted in Pennsylvania and published in Environmental Entomology earlier this year highlights threats to nontarget organisms from neonicotinoid insecticide exposure. Carabid beetles, the target of the current study, are, according to the researchers, “some of the most common predaceous, soil macrofauna found in Mid-Atlantic agroecosystems, and they are active throughout the growing season.†(See study here.) This causes these beetles to frequently encounter neonicotinoids through multiple exposure routes. The authors continue: “In systems where neonicotinoids are applied to leaves (i.e., foliar sprays on many vegetable crops), carabids may experience topical exposure at rates up to 100 to 1,000 ng [nanogram] of active ingredient,†the authors say. (See Daily News here.)
Additionally, a recent study published in Insects finds honey bees experience sublethal effects when exposed to the neonicotinoid insecticide thiamethoxam that threaten the survival of bee larvae and the health of bee colonies. “Our finding reveals that thiamethoxam exerts sublethal effects on larvae, significantly impairing the fitness of reproductive bees,†the authors explain. “Specifically, exposure altered juvenile hormone III, ecdysone titer, and acetylcholinesterase activity [enzyme activity necessary for nervous system and cognitive functioning] in reproductive larvae, with these effects showing a negative correlation with pesticide concentration.†(See Daily News here.)
Inaction on neonicotinoids and the broader pesticide addiction continues for nonagricultural and agricultural forms of pest management. A recent analysis of agricultural neonicotinoid insecticide regulations, published in Pest Management Science, evaluates the varied approaches being taken for bans and exemption-based restrictions. Despite the proliferation of peer-reviewed research linking neonicotinoid exposure to adverse environmental and health effects, “regulations have spread from the EU to Canadian provinces and, subsequently, to specific US states, becoming increasingly voluntary and less restrictive over time,†the authors highlight. (See Daily News here.)
Call to Action
For additional analysis of peer-reviewed science on neonicotinoids, see here. What The Science Shows on Biodiversity provides access to scientific studies organized by pesticide impacts on bees, other pollinators, and beneficial organisms. There is also a subsection on parasites and viruses that impact pollinators.
You can also put the science and policy findings into action by subscribing to Action of the Week and Weekly News Update, as well as registering to become a Parks Advocate for the Parks for a Sustainable Future Program—providing in-depth training to assist community land managers in transitioning two public green spaces to organic landscape management, while aiming to provide the knowledge and skills necessary to eventually transition all public areas in a locality to these safer practices.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
