Viewpoint: The case against banning neonicotinoid pesticides

a b a b b
Credit: Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

As Consumer Choice Center, we believe that [Vermont] Bill H.706 – which plans to ban the use of neonicotinoid treated seeds starting 2029, – should not be passed. Our organization stands up for available, affordable, innovative and sustainable food.
We oppose bills that we think makes food more expensive for consumers — but the entire conversation on neonic bans isn’t just about food affordability, the bill itself, we believe, is based on faulty premises.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

In short:

  • This legislation would adversely impact consumers, with reduced food security and higher prices
  • This bill would negatively impact farmers
  • This bill would increase the overall use of pesticides and its associated costs
  • Jurisdictions that have implemented a similar ban have experienced higher costs
  • This bill lacks a proper impact assessment
  • This bill is not backed by sufficient evidence on the effects of pollinators

Pesticides come at an expense to farmers and their business– this spend is made out of the necessity of protecting their crops. This applies as a general rule to crop protection. As an example, Vermont dairy farmers, who fertilize their corn with cow manure: this is a sustainable practice, but it attracts seedcorn maggots, which can cause total crop loss. This is why farmers use neonic-treated seeds, because they are effective in repelling against all sorts of pests. These chemicals have been effectively used since the 1990s, and they ensure that consumers get a reliable food supply.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-12.21.32-PM
Viewpoint: Why the retracted Monsanto glyphosate study doesn’t change the science—the world’s most popular herbicide is safe 
Picture1
The FDA couldn’t find a vaccine safety crisis, so it buried its own research
ChatGPT-Image-May-1-2026-11_42_59-AM-2
Viewpoint: NAD is the wellness grifters latest evidence-lite longevity fad. At least the mice are impressed.
global warming
‘Implausible’: Top climate scientists reject worst-case scenario—soaring temperatures and fast-rising sea levels
Screenshot-2026-05-21-at-12.15.17-PM
UK gene-editing milestone: Livestock barley that increases ruminant value and reduces methane emissions is first-approved CRISPR crop
vax-misinformation-main
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Limit free speech to blunt social media misinfo?
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-16-2026-02_56_53-PM
Financial incentives, over diagnosis, and weak oversight: Autism claims are driving up Medicare costs
Screenshot-2026-05-21-at-3.15.53-PM
Chiropractors may no longer be modern-day snake oil salesmen, but the benefits of their therapy are limited–at best
ChatGPT-Image-May-12-2026-11_27_01-AM-2
AI likely to improve health care, research shows—but not for blacks and ethnic minorities
Screenshot-2026-05-20-at-5.11.17-PM
Viewpoint: No, sugar doesn’t ‘feed’ cancer — common cancer myths, debunked

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.