Legislative Update 01.26.24
NEW: Listen Here! - Legislative Updates & Recordings
Having a hard time keeping up with the processes of the legislature? Or navigating the legislative website to find hearings of interest? Trouble finding recordings on YouTube? Listen up, Rural Vermont! is a new Rural Vermont webpage that features all 2024 VT legislative hearings relevant to agriculture. We’re also featuring highlights on social media that relate to our policy priorities.
Here is how to follow what’s happening at the statehouse!
Listen up, Rural Vermont! Legislative Video Recordings HERE
Table of Contents
Click on the links to read text updates OR listen to our new audio recordings!
FULL 01.26.24 WEEKLY AUDIO RECORDING
(includes all sections of the legislative summary)
H.706 Neonicotinoid Pesticides, and Act 145 (2022)
H.706 Neonicotinoid Pesticides, and Act 145 (2022): The House Agriculture Committee began a substantive session dealing with neonics by revisiting Act 145 of 2022, and then continued on to the consideration of H.706 - drafted by Rep. Chesnut-Tangerman. This bill is largely based on a recently passed NY bill which significantly limits neonic use. The NY bill is very similar to the bill we were working on with the Protect our Pollinators Coalition. This bill does 3 primary things:
Prohibits the sale and use of field crop seeds treated with neonics
Prohibits outdoor uses of neonics that risk significant harm to pollinators
Extends the existing neonic regulations to include treated seeds, making them “restricted use”
The European Union, Ontario, and Quebec have all recognized the harmful impacts of neonicotinoid pesticides and the lack of evidence supporting their efficacy for farmers; and have imposed severe restrictions on their use. In December, New York state passed legislation (S.1856-A/A.7640, “The Birds and Bees Protection Act”) which will fully go into effect in 2029 imposing similarly restrictive regulations. Rural VT has been part of the Protect Our Pollinators Coalition since 2023 to support similar legislation in Vermont, with the goal of a just transition away from the widespread use of neonicotinoid pesticides (“neonics”).
According to pesticide sales and usage data reported by the VAAFM (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets) in December 2023, 99.6% of corn seed, and 34% of soybeans sold in VT in 2022 were treated with neonicotinoids - accounting for 90,000 and 7,000 acres respectively. Extensive research and a report from Cornell University finds that corn, soybean, and other seed coatings—the largest source of neonic pollution in Vermont—are not only significantly harmful to insects, birds, other animals, and humans; but also provide no overall economic benefits to farmers using them. This conclusion continues to be confirmed by ongoing field trials in NY and Vermont, and by the accounts of farmers in Quebec who have transitioned away from neonics. Research in VT and NY has found neonics present in soil profiles of agricultural fields years after they were last treated, and in fields and forests which were never treated; highlighting the persistence and mobility of these pesticides, and raising significant questions about exposure, consent, and accountability for all farms.
In 2021, the Agricultural Innovation Board (follow the link to see all of the presentations and documents reviewed or created by the AIB) was created by the VT Legislature both as an alternative to directly regulating neonic coated seeds itself (which Rural VT, NOFA VT, and other organizations were advocating for), and as a replacement for the Vermont Pesticide Advisory Council (VPAC). This Board was directly tasked with developing Best Management Practices (BMPs) for neonic treated seeds and released its recommendations in January 2024. Disappointingly, these recommendations do not actually include BMPs, rather they focus on “research and education”.
Despite these recommendations, or lack thereof, Rural VT affirms the need to end the widespread prophylactic use of neonicotinoids via treated seed, and the other uses addressed in H.706. We also affirm the need to address the concerns and needs of the community of farmers who will be transitioning away from these pesticides, and the need to address the concerns and needs of the communities of beekeepers, farmers, and others who are negatively affected by them. We are generally supportive of H.706 as written - and are open to conversations about how it could be improved in order to better meet these concerns and needs. The legislation which was recently signed into law in NY was supported by a diversity of environmental organizations and agricultural organizations, hundreds of individual farms, and the New York Farm Bureau. We hope that VT can achieve a similar network of support.
Recently, the discussion around neonics at the farm and policy levels has developed significantly - and there are more and more resources available for farmers and community members to further understand the issue. Heather Darby, UVM Extension, has recently been working with a cohort of farmers researching neonic and non-neonic plantings in VT. In December, she organized the webinar series, “managing neonicotinoids in row crops”; and you can see some of her presentations on the AIB website. Samantha Algers, UVM Research Assistant Professor and Director of the VT Bee Lab, also conducts research on pesticides and bee colonies, and worked to bring together a panel of Quebec farmers who have transitioned away from neonics and a Quebec agronomist this past week to speak specifically to their experiences as farmers transitioning. Frustrations within the VT beekeeping community with the Vermont Agency of Agriculture (VAAFM) have also come to a head related to the VAAFM’s recent Apiary Status Report and its relatively positive assessment of the health of VT’s bees and apiaries. The VT Beekeepers Association in its rebuttal to the VAAFM report writes, “The VAAFM’s claim of record honey bee numbers in Vermont as evidence of a ‘healthy and robust beekeeping industry’ is not only misleading but serves to undermine our industry and ongoing efforts in Vermont to protect managed and native bees, both of whom are in great peril.”
As it stands now, farmers in VT are nearly universally planting neonic treated seed to prophylactically address potential pest issues leading to crop loss, yet are very rarely benefiting from these uses at all, and on a net level, are not economically benefiting even in crops that don’t rely on bees. This seed is treated outside of the state of VT by the seed companies providing them, and - based on accounts from farmers and technical service providers - often farmers are not aware what particular pesticides are on the seed coating. Here in VT there is, and prior to implementation of the law in Quebec there was, concern in the agricultural community using neonics related to a number of things, such as: potential crop loss, adaptation to new management practices, and sourcing the appropriate seed with the desired (non-neonic) treatments in the amount needed. However research and accounts of farmers who have transitioned continue to demonstrate similar yields between seed treated with and without neonics, very low incidence of crop infestation with the pests of concern, and farmers in Quebec spoke at length to the relative ease of sourcing seed and companies shifting application practices, one going so far as to say, “don’t be fooled” by what the seed companies are telling you.
TAKE ACTION!
It is early in this bill’s path, but it is not too early to contact your representatives, and the Reps in the House and Senate Ag Committees, to voice your support for H.706, transitioning away from neonics, and supporting farmers in transitioning.
H.603 on Selling Parted Birds Without Inspection up for vote on the House Floor
H. 603 seeks to allow the sale of uninspected poultry parts from the farm, at farmers’ markets, and to restaurants. It strikes the words “whole bird” from the existing Vermont statute, which is based on existing USDA Guidance. New research from the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund highlights in a state-by-state poultry map that many states defer to the USDA to define what is allowed under the exemption from inspection. Standing USDA Guidance from 2006 defines that: “The terms “processed” and “processing” refer to operations in which the carcasses of slaughtered poultry are defeathered, eviscerated, cut-up, skinned, boned, canned, salted, stuffed, rendered, or otherwise manufactured or processed.” The House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resilience and Markets (HAG), heard from a series of farmers over the last couple of weeks who all expressed difficulties with marketing whole birds only and shared excitement about the potential economic gains from H.603. Staff from the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (VAAFM) is in support of the bill though suggested more clarity around what type of processing should be allowed. Their suggested edits attempted to rule out processing beyond additional parting, especially: chicken pot pie. In concurrence with VAAFM’s recommendation, the committee decided to specify that “raw” poultry would be exempt in the 1,000, 5,000 and 20,000 bird exemptions. On 01/23/24, H.603 was voted out of the HAG committee with unanimous support and is now underway to the House floor. UPDATE: H.603 passed the full House on 1/26/24! We believe the bill has a good chance of being passed this session!
Video recordings available to date on H.603:
Action Alert! RAP Rewrite, including Composting Food Residuals
The Farm to Plate Food Cycle Community of Practice (FCC) has been drafting recommendations for implementing Act 41 (2021) and rules for on-farm composting in Vermont's Required Agricultural Practices Rule. To date, the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, & Markets (VAAFM) have not launched their rulemaking process, continue to delay their legislative mandate to launch a rulemaking in January of last year, and did not offer a timeline for the promised process in their recent annual report on the practice. Instead, VAAFM has deviated from their mandate to issue rules by saying: “The duality in the regulation of compost creates an inherent problem for both the regulators and the regulated community.” In a presentation to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, VAAFM chose to highlight a case of one business aiming to take advantage of the new law without actually also being a farm - the same approach opponents of Act 41 have taken in the past (recordings: part 1, part 2 (until 30:15)). The outstanding rules will directly impact farms' ability to both establish and grow existing composting efforts, a key climate change mitigation strategy that also improves farm production. The upcoming rewrite is also an opportunity to include Soil Health Principles and a new understanding of agricultural wastes as resources (different from actual waste) in the RAPs.
TAKE ACTION!
Review and share your input! Everyone can view the FCC draft recommendations for on-farm composting rules here. Fill out this form to add your comments and questions. Deadline for providing input is Friday, February 16th. If you're not comfortable with Google Drive, please email or call Natasha Duarte (Compost Association of Vermont at natasha@compostingvermont.org | 802-373-6499).
Action Alert! Allow Compost Toilets and Ban Land Application of Septage NOW!
In Vermont, flush toilets are the largest water user in most homes with as much as 2 gallons lost with every flush. Wastewater treatment plants are vulnerable to flooding, releasing contaminants into the water during extreme weather events - especially last year (VTDigger 12/23/23). In 2023, H.163 related to eco-sanitation systems was introduced and would implement a study committee to develop recommendations to improve the accessibility and best management of compost toilet systems in Vermont. The Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources highlighted how the lack of wastewater treatment plants limits economic growth and housing development (VTDigger) and compost toilets can offer a climate-friendly solution to managing “humanure” in a decentralized way. Currently, the use of compost toilets is allowed. However, composting and using the by-product (“organics”) is not. Instead, these organics must be buried, but the Eco-Sanitation Coalition claims that homeowners report high expenses and unclear pathways for obtaining the needed permit for burying solids; as well as a lack of guidance for storage and management during winter months. H. 163 is currently “on the wall” in the House Committee on Environment and Energy (HEE) where it’s unlikely to receive much or any attention given the high workload of that committee. A related bill is also stranded in that committee, H.674 which seeks to ban the spread of septage on farmland in the State. The bill would stress a report on the allowed spread of sewage sludge which is associated with the spreading of PFAS. Rural Vermont is in contact with farmers in Maine affected by legacy contamination of the land application of municipal wastes. We believe the Vermont legislature needs to support folks who want to invest in low-impact compost toilets and invite farmers from Maine to share about how to address PFAS contamination.
TAKE ACTION BY END OF MON JAN 29TH!
Support more climate resilient ways of waste management & email or call Representatives to Ask for H.163 and H.674 to be transferred to the House Agriculture, Food Resilience and Forestry Committee (HAG) Now!
SEND AN EMAIL!
Here is suggested messaging (don’t forget to add a personal note at the end!):
Dear Representatives,
Vermont is now a state prone to flooding and many of our wastewater systems failed during extreme weather conditions. The Maine Legislature is leading the way to address legacy contamination of farmland with biosolids. We need your support for decentralized low-impact compost toilet systems as well as a ban on the continued spread of septage and sludge on farmland that causes accumulation of PFOS/PFAS contamination. Farmers are the ones most affected by these issues. Farmers in Maine have become sickened and lost their farms due to PFAS contamination, and it is often farms who use compost toilets for their guests and employees. We are worried that neither issue will be prioritized this session in the House Committee on Environment and Energy and kindly request to transfer H. 163 and H.674 to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resilience and Forestry.
[Insert personal note here!]
Respectfully,
Your name
And below is the list of Representatives from HAG & HEE that need to receive the above message by the end of Monday, January 29, 2024. If you’d prefer to call and leave messages, the State House phone number is (802) 828-2228.
Bennington - Rep. David Durfee, Chair HAG - ddurfee@leg.state.vt.us
Windsor - Rep. Heather Surprenant, Vice Chair HAG - hsurprenant@leg.state.vt.us
Orange - Rep. Rodney Graham, Ranking Member HAG - rgraham@leg.state.vt.us
Windsor - Rep. Esme Cole, HAG - ecole@leg.state.vt.us
Grand Isle-Chittenden - Rep. Josie Leavitt, HAG - jleavitt@leg.state.vt.us
Lamoille - Rep. Jed Lipsky, HAG - jlipsky@leg.state.vt.us
Caledonia/Washington - Rep. Henry Pearl, Clerk, HAG - hpearl@leg.state.vt.us
Windsor/Orange - Rep. John O'Brien, HAG - jobrien@leg.state.vt.us
Bennington/Rutland - Rep. Mike Rice, HAG - mrice@leg.state.vt.us
Orleans - Rep. David Templeman, HAG - templeman@leg.state.vt.us
Caledonia - Rep. Charles Wilson, HAG - cwilson@leg.state.vt.us
Addison - Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair HEE - asheldon@leg.state.vt.us
Windham - Rep. Laura Sibilia, Vice Chair HEE - lsibilia@leg.state.vt.us
Bennington - Rep. Seth Bongartz, Ranking Member HEE - sbongartz@leg.state.vt.us
Rutland - Rep. Paul Clifford, HEE - pclifford@leg.state.vt.us
Chittenden - Rep. Kate Logan, HEE - klogan@leg.state.vt.us
Windsor - Rep. Kristi Morris, HEE - kmorris2@leg.state.vt.us
Lamoille/Washington - Rep. Avram Patt, HEE - apatt@leg.state.vt.us
Orange/Washington/Addison - Rep. Larry Satcowitz, HEE - lsatcowitz@leg.state.vt.us
Chittenden - Rep. Gabrielle Stebbins, Clerk, HEE - gstebbins@leg.state.vt.us
Orleans - Rep. Brian Smith, HEE - BSmith@leg.state.vt.us
Washington - Rep. Dara Torre, HEE -dtorre@leg.state.vt.us
Amending the Accessory On-Farm Business Law
H.128 seeks to amend the existing Accessory On-Farm Business Law (Act 143), to bring greater clarity and consistency to laws related to development and accessory on-farm businesses. See the summary of H.128 from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets here. If you operate a farm store that sells more than your own farm grown products, if you host farm based stays or events, or if you’re considering either of these options, then this bill affects you.
Financial Assistance for Fruit Farmers
H.813 seeks to establish a new program for financial assistance for fruit farmers who suffered production losses in the calendar year 2023 due to freezing or frost conditions. As introduced, the proposed appropriation of $10M would focus on covering losses during 2023 and not also cover potential losses that may occur in 2024 and onwards. Bill introduction is scheduled for Friday 1/26.
Farmland Access & Local Self Reliance
A presentation on New England Feeding New England (NEFNE) focused on food resiliency and the goal of New England producing 30% of our own food by 2030. Regarding the majority of foods, the state is over 90% import-dependent - currently importing 50% of all dairy, 96.8% of all proteins, 91.3% of all fruits, 98.4% of all grains, and also 71.7% of all vegetables consumed in Vermont (see NEFNE VT State Brief). The presentation included a graphic indicating that VT will lose approximately over 40 thousand acres that are currently in food production by 2040 if development and farmland loss continue as it is. It also states that to reach 30% regional self-sufficiency, New England states need to bring 400,000 acres of under-utilized land back into production and 590,000 acres of land that is currently growing up into wood, back into ag production by clearing it. VAAFM addressed the findings of the NEFNE brief and explained a designated focus of the Agency is on supply chain and distribution. Rural Vermont’s Legislative Director Caroline Gordon commented that markets alone won’t solve the issue of farmland access for farmers and requested a thorough policy discussion on the issue of the loss of farmland and the feasible policy solutions to facilitate farmland access.
In the Senate Committee on Agriculture, John Roberts (State Executive Director of the USDA Farm Service Agency) testified on ongoing flood relief for farmers. Regarding rising farmland prices, John Roberts explained: “The data I have shows that VT was averaging about 3,500 thousand dollars per acre for farms (in 2020). That has risen by just over a thousand dollars to 4,600. But when I look at our neighboring states, MA, they’re taking 15,000 dollars and RI 18,000 an acre… The demand, I think, is rising for several reasons. Big farms continue to get bigger… I suspect that people are coming up here and saying ‘I can buy so much more!’” Roberts clarified that while foreign buyers are not a high concern for the state, a combination of farm expansion and the acquisition of farmland to develop “trophy homes” are relevant factors
Regarding these trends, Vermont’s potential to be a future target of climate-motivated land grabs is worth noting. A 2020 study by ProPublica and The New York Times projects that, from 2040-2060, out of all counties across the U.S that will be safest from climate devastation, 6 out of the top 10 are in Vermont. American Farmland Trust reports that 40% of farmland will change hands over the next 15 years, suggesting a possible trend of climate-motivated speculative buying that will cause further rises in farmland prices. To learn more about pending legislation on the federal level to protect farmland for farmers, check out The Farmland for Farmers Act.
Vermont State Brief on Local Self Reliance (NEFNE) here
Ellen Kahler (NEFNE) presentation to SAG here, recording HAG here
John Roberts (FSA) presentation to SAG here
Caroline Gordon comment on land access here
Cannabis
Rural VT continues to work with the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition to support the passage of legislation we drafted last year (S.127), and to support the inclusion of particular priorities in H.612 - the Miscellaneous Cannabis bill - which was recently introduced in the House Government Operations Committee. H.612 proposes to do a number of things, including getting rid of “THC Caps” (one of the priorities of our coalition partner Vermont Growers’ Association), and exempting farm buildings used by licensed outdoor cannabis cultivators from the definition of “public building” subject to fire safety requirements. Our priorities include, but are not limited to:
Tax Revenue invested in communities disproportionately harmed by the criminalization of cannabis
Tax Revenue invested in the Cannabis Development Fund
Direct Markets and value added for smaller tiers of cultivators and manufacturers
Further develop agricultural status for outdoor producers related to:
Farm buildings, “public building” status, and fire safety requirements
Nonabutting SPANs
Wetlands
Expungement
Public consumption
Increasing homegrow allowance
Supporting Green Mtn Patients’ Alliance medical priorities