Neonicotinoids seems to be the word rolling off the tongues of lawmakers this year as the legislative session kicks off. Senate bill 26-065, concerning limitations on the use of certain insecticides in the state, sponsored by Sen. Katie Wallace, a Democrat who represents Boulder, Broomfield, and Weld Counties; Sen. Cathy Kipp, a Democrat who represents Larimer County; Rep. Elizabeth Velasco, a Democrat who represents Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties; and Rep. Kyle Brown, a Democrat representing Boulder and Broomfield Counties, seeks to force growers to annually “work with “an approved third-party verifier to determine if such use is necessary and appropriate.”
Seed dealers face $50,000 in fines or a revocation of their license for noncompliance with the requirement that they sell treated seed only to growers if the seed use is necessary and appropriate, and expected to be effective. It’s unclear who this wildly out-of-line power will be bestowed upon, but it smacks of similarities to the labor bill that allowed “service providers” to trespass and access farm workers. I’ve not forgotten how that was a misstep that Gov. Jared Polis wisely resolved.
To reduce the amount of pesticides applied to fields and to increase crop success, seed dealers have developed treated seeds. Treated seeds improve germination and emergence; offer disease and pest protection against soilborne pathogens, fungus, and insects; enhanced nitrogen fixation which translates to improving the plant’s ability to produce its own nitrogen; increased vigor through a significant increase in lateral roots to help young plants survive challenging environments; and the increased weight of each seed helps ensure even planting. In short, it also reduces the need for additional pesticide applications. Just as important as pest control, treated seeds enhance microbial activity and nutrient uptake, improve root development, and improve nitrogen efficiency.
Seed companies and farmers did what consumers asked for by doing more with less. Forcing agriculture to return to the stone age is the antithesis of precision agriculture. Precision agriculture is grounded in eliminating excess, eliminating overapplication, and ensuring the correct dose is used. A farmer who has spent 30 years in the seed business said it is flawed to lump all neonics – and all crops, for that matter – together. He said it is not the mere use of pesticides that kill pests, it is the dose. And if the dose is too high, it’s akin to tossing money out the window of a moving vehicle careening down the state’s roads.
Technology in agriculture works because ag producers use the right technology in the right places. In a time when beekeepers are still uncertain and unable to come to a clear consensus about the cause of colony collapses, it’s unwise to throw the baby out with the bath water. Hell, this is throwing out the plumbing altogether.
The Colorado Department of Agriculture must step in to influence who the third-party verifiers are and to ensure decisions are being made based on science. Lord knows that’s not a new ask from the state’s agriculture producers. That’s the department’s job.
In addition to being granted permission to utilize widely accepted and thoroughly tested technology, the bill requires in-season insect scouting on the agricultural property” and documentation of emergence rates for all locations where treated seed is used. Colorado contains 30 million acres of farmland across 36,000 farm operations. Scouting all of those acres is a behemoth job to do every year, especially in a time when farm labor is exceedingly difficult to find.
It’s time to slow down and host stakeholder meetings on this bill. If that’s something that has happened, none of the agriculture trade groups or producers I’m familiar with were in the room. That’s not stakeholder engagement. That’s a pep rally.
This is a major attack on agriculture, and its passage will result in catastrophic results for the state’s alfalfa, barley, canola, corn, millet, oat, rye, safflower, sorghum, soybean, sunflower and wheat growers and the consumers they feed. CDA needs to step forward and defend their producers and their industries against this misguided bill and leaders in the legislature must ensure that this assigned to the agriculture committees of reference to be heard after a robust stakeholder engagement process.
I’ve long said that the plate shouldn’t be legislated and sweeping changes like the ones in this deeply flawed bill have far-reaching unintended consequences. It’s unclear where this bill is coming from, though it’s certainly not coming from the industries most affected by it. That seems to be the theme as of late.
Rachel Gabel writes about agriculture and rural issues. She is assistant editor of The Fence Post Magazine, the region’s preeminent agriculture publication.
