Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need

News Feed
Wednesday, October 30, 2024

What Our Investigation Revealed Nearly all commodity corn farmers receive seed coated with neonics each season. Many cannot identify the chemical coating on their seeds and only opt for it because a seed salesperson recommends it. Companies have made it nearly impossible for farmers to find corn seed that isn’t coated with neonics. Farmers often feel peer pressure not to ask questions or change their practices in the face of concerns about neonics’ safety. Like so many people whose lives were upended during the pandemic, Sean Dengler returned to his roots. In 2020, he went back to northern Iowa and joined his father in farming 500 acres of corn and soybeans. As he learned the ropes, he began engaging with Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI), a unique organization that attracts out-of-the-box thinkers and tinkerers across a wide spectrum of sustainable agriculture in the Midwest. Soon, he was reading about neonicotinoids—“neonics” for short—now the most common chemicals used to kill bugs in American agriculture. Why It Matters Neonic-treated seeds are planted on approximately 90 million acres of corn fields and more than 40 million acres of soybean fields each year. Research shows neonics threaten pollinators, birds, aquatic organisms, and mammals, and may pose risks to humans. Evidence shows there are no significant yield losses from planting seeds without neonic coatings. Farmers are paying extra for insecticide seed coatings they may not need. Farmers can spray them on fields, but these insecticides are also attached to seeds as an outer coating, called a seed treatment. As the seeds germinate and grow, the plant’s tissues become toxic to certain pests. However, neonics impact beneficial insects, too, like bees and other pollinators. Newer research also shows neonics threaten birds and some mammals, suggesting potential human health impacts. In 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the three most common neonics were each likely to harm more than 1,000 endangered species. Also, neonics move through soil into groundwater, contaminating rivers and streams in the Midwest and beyond. Data from 2015 to 2016 showed about half of Americans over three years old were recently exposed to a neonic. Dengler suspected he had been planting neonic-treated seed, but he wasn’t sure exactly which chemicals the colorful coating was meant to warn him of. He also had no idea if it would be possible for him to order seeds without the treatment. “The corn is usually either red or purple when it comes,” he said. “That’s how it’s always been. You just get it that way.” In numerous interviews over the past year, other farmers, researchers, and industry insiders described the same scenario to Civil Eats. While the agrichemical industry claims farmers “carefully select the right pesticide for each pest and crop at issue” and “only use pesticides as a last resort,” when it comes to neonics, that is false in most cases. Nearly all commodity corn farmers receive seed coated with neonics at the start of each season; many cannot identify the chemical that’s in the coating and don’t even know if another option exists. These findings are significant for a few key reasons. First, the pesticide industry often calls seed treatment environmentally beneficial because it reduces the amount of insecticide applied per acre compared to spraying. This is true. But research shows that the preemptive coating of seed with neonics has resulted in farmers using insecticides, overall, on significantly more total acres than they were a few decades ago. A 2015 study published by researchers Maggie Douglas and John Tooker at Penn State University found that neonic seed treatments are now used on almost triple the area that had once been sprayed with insecticides, indicating their negative impacts could be more widely distributed. Chart showing the rise in the use of neonicotinoid pesticides between 1995 and 2011. The majority of neonics are used in corn and soybeans. (Source: Douglas and Tooker, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 8, 5088–5097) Second, a significant portion of that use may be for nothing. In corn and soy fields, new research and evidence accumulated over the last few years suggest that widespread use of neonic-treated seeds provide minimal benefit to farmers. One study from Quebec helped convince the Canadian province to change its laws to restrict the use of neonic seed treatments. After five years and a 95 percent drop in the use of neonic-coated seeds, there have been no reported impacts on crop yields. But based on conversations with farmers and other industry insiders, agrichemical companies that sell seeds and pesticides continue to steer farmers toward using neonics on their seeds—and sometimes, there are no other options available. “They scare the farmers and say that you’re going to lose your yield, that you’re going to have crop failure, and the whole grain sector will just collapse,” said Louis Robert, a Canadian agronomist who previously worked for the Quebec government, where he revealed pesticide-industry meddling in research on neonics’ environmental harms. “They go very far in terms of misleading people.” Chemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide IndustryRead all the stories in our series: Overview: Chemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide Industry How the agrichemical industry is shaping public information about the toxicity of pesticides, how they’re being used, and the policies that impact the health of all Americans. Inside Bayer’s State-by-State Efforts to Stop Pesticide Lawsuits As the agrichemical giant lays groundwork to fend off Roundup litigation, its use of a playbook for building influence in farm state legislatures has the potential to benefit pesticide companies nationwide. Are Companies Using Carbon Markets to Sell More Pesticides? Many programs meant to help farmers address climate change are now owned by companies that sell chemicals, which could boost practices that depend on pesticides rather than those that reduce their use. Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need Neonicotinoids coat nearly all the corn and soybean seeds available for planting. Agrichemical companies have designed it that way. At the same time, the industry has engaged in a broad, sophisticated lobbying and public relations effort to block regulation in the U.S., muddy the research waters, and even influence Google search results for neonics, all of which has been documented in depth by The Intercept. So, while Europe and Canada have been moving away from the widespread use of neonics, the U.S. has barely budged in its approach. Neonic-treated seeds are planted on nearly 90 million acres of corn fields and more than 40 million acres of soybean fields each year. Only New York has passed a ban that includes eliminating them as coatings on corn and soy seeds—and that law does not go into effect until 2029. (Neonic treatments are common on many other seeds, including wheat, cotton, and vegetables, and farmers’ reliance on them varies across different crops. This investigation focused only on corn and soy, by far the two most widely planted crops in the country.) Over the course of three weeks in October, Civil Eats sent at least four interview requests and detailed questions to CropLife America, which represents the pesticide industry, but did not receive a response. We also sent emails to press contacts at the companies that make or sell pesticide and seed products mentioned in this story: Corteva (which owns Pioneer) and Winfield United (owned by Land O’Lakes) did not respond. A spokesperson for Syngenta directed Civil Eats to “Growing Matters,” an initiative of the American Seed Trade Association, and sent a statement that reads, “Planting seeds treated with crop-protection products is a more precise way for farmers to protect their crops from early season pests and diseases. As you can see from our global Seedcare Institute website, Syngenta is a leader in providing treated seeds of the highest quality and committed to helping farmers achieve their yield goals sustainably.” No Knowledge, No Choice For many years, Kynetec, a global data company, asked farmers to share which insecticides were on their seeds and then provided the federal government with estimates of how many acres were being planted with the chemicals included. But because farmers were so often unable to name the specific chemicals, it was impossible to warrant a reliable data set. They stopped in 2014. A few years later, in a 2020 paper, researchers reported in the journal Bioscience that only 65 percent of corn growers and 62 percent of soybean growers could name the seed treatment product they were using. Even if they did know the product, that didn’t mean they knew what was in it. In fact, in 15 to 35 percent of cases, corn growers incorrectly identified the pesticides included in the treatment. It speaks to why Damon Smith’s colleagues at the University of Wisconsin’s Nutrient and Pest Management Program dreamed up a resource dubbed “What’s on your seed?” When Smith, a biologist who studies field crop diseases, started working on it around 2010, the document was a page or two long, and they updated it every few years. Today, it’s a six-page PDF that the team updates at least once a year to keep up with new seed treatments hitting the market. Very few of those are new chemicals entirely. Most are new combinations of a neonic (or another insecticide) paired with anywhere from one to four fungicides, and maybe a nematicide, a chemical that targets pests called nematodes. Illustration by Civil Eats (click for a larger version) “There’s quite a few products out there, and it’s gotten increasingly complicated,” Smith said. Sales agronomists who work for seed companies, farmers said, sell product packages based mainly on their marketed “yield potential” and are unlikely to talk up the names of pesticides included in the coating. And they emphasize the need for seed coatings as insurance against crop loss. “The way it often gets marketed to [farmers] is, they get one chance a year to get it right,” explained Mac Erhardt, co-owner of Albert Lea Seed, a small, family-owned seed company based in Minnesota and Iowa. “The big chemical companies have been pretty successful at distributing counter-information where they show, ‘Well, if you plant naked seed, you’re giving up five bushels an acre.’” Six or seven years ago, before his company made a full switch to selling non-GMO and organic seeds, Erhardt said his contracts with big seed companies required him to treat corn seed with neonics before selling it. With soybeans, the system works a little differently, and farmers are able to select seed treatments at the time of sale. One Iowa farmer compared soybean seed selection to a car wash. Instead of exterior, interior, and a wax, it’s neonicotinoid, fungicide, and a nematicide. One Iowa farmer, who asked not to be named, compared the process to a car wash. “You can pick what you want on the screen, and then it formulates it and puts it through,” she said. Instead of exterior, interior, and a wax, it’s neonicotinoid, fungicide, and a nematicide. Still, farmers said they almost always defer to the seed dealers and are often unaware of what the treatments they’re selecting consist of. “From a farmer’s perspective, we want a seed to be protected, so we just trust that whatever potion they put on the seed, it’s going to be okay. They’re not in the business of selling seed that will yield less, so we just put our trust in them,” she said. “If we had real choices, those that know insecticides like neonics are harmful, we’re not going to push that button.” Fears About Speaking Out Against Treated Seeds Pesticide companies are so entrenched in the culture of agricultural communities, asking questions about insecticides and their merits or detriments also can feel taboo. One reason this farmer did not want to be named was because she thought, with all of the seed contracts she’d signed over the years, that it was possible she had signed a non-disclosure agreement without realizing it. For others, it’s much more personal. After Frank Rademacher, who has been farming corn and soybeans with his dad in east-central Illinois since 2018, talked about neonics to a reporter at a farming publication, another farmer yelled at him in public and accused him of hurting agriculture. Estimated agricultural use of the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam, by year and crop, between 1992 and 2019. 2014 was the last year that Kynetec provided USGS with data that included seed treatment, so the 2015 drop-off shows how much use is in seed coatings. (Source: U.S. Geological Survey data) Rademacher said that many farmers he encounters have a vague, visceral sense that there may be risks associated with the colorful dust that blows into the air as the high-powered vacuum system shoots seeds into the ground and the tractor shakes and bumps around. But pesticides are so commonplace that at a forum he attended, farmers laughed about which ones cause rashes and which lead to headaches. With neonics, he said, they’re grateful to have insecticides that are not as acutely toxic as the ones their parents handled. If they try not to touch the seeds with their bare hands or breathe too much of the dust in, it feels like enough. “The products that they were using growing up, they were just horrible,” he said of farmers in their 50s and older like his dad, who might have been exposed to insecticides like DDT, malathion, and chlorpyrifos that have now been banned or phased out. “This is kind of an invisible issue. It takes away a lot of the acute exposure, and what you trade is the long-term personal and environmental low-level exposure.” Illustration by Civil Eats Sean Dengler worried that even asking questions about neonics when buying his seed would upset others in his small farming community, some of whom he had known since childhood and considered friends. “My dad’s very conventional, and I don’t wanna make him feel uncomfortable in that way. It’s kind of like a peer pressure type of thing,” he said. But Dengler  recognized the power that gave the industry. “It’s a good thing for big business. You get everyone on one side, and you can’t have people think differently.” With the name of Dengler’s product in hand, Civil Eats tried to find out for him if the soybean treatment he had used contained a neonic. Because it was a newer product and wasn’t yet listed in Damon Smith’s resource, it took significant searching and emailing to track down the chemicals included. The insecticide was thiamethoxam—one of the most common neonics. Later, Dengler got his chance to ask about what was included in his corn seed treatments. Attending a plot tour hosted by Pioneer, one of the major seed companies, he learned that the corn seed had “seven fungicide treatments and two insecticide treatments on it. That’s the first time during my farming career I heard anything about it,” he explained by email to Civil Eats. Leaving Neonic-Coated Seeds Behind For those who do decide to swim upstream, the current encouraging them to stay the usual course is strong. “Even though there’s data showing that, ‘Hey, with a few tweaks, you can change your farming practices and you don’t need to use insecticides on your seed,’ [farmers] still want that protection. They don’t want that one-out-of-every-10-years problem,” said Erhardt, from Albert Lea Seed. That rare issue is the sticking point: Neonics are very good at killing some pests that can cause serious damage to crops, and companies are quick to point to that. One industry document created by CropLife to promote neonics on seeds highlights a study that found the number of plants that survived the season increased 18 percent, and crop yield increased by 12 percent, “when neonicotinoid-treated corn seed was planted into corn fields with high wireworm populations.” “Even though there’s data showing that, ‘Hey, with a few tweaks, you can change your farming practices and you don’t need to use insecticides on your seed,’ [farmers] still want that protection.” In other words, if you use neonics in a field infested with wireworm, it really helps. But using it on every field preventatively is like taking an antibiotic every day in case an infection pops up at some point. “Most of the pests that neonics really work well on are highly sporadic,” said Maggie Douglas, who is now an assistant professor of environmental studies at Dickinson College. “The question is: How many farmers are having a seedcorn maggot infestation in their field in a given year?” Seedcorn maggots are dreaded for their ability to burrow into seeds and kill a crop off the bat. But in New York, at least, there’s a clear answer. As the campaign to pass a law banning the use of neonicotinoid coatings on corn and soybean seeds heated up, farm groups were concerned, specifically, about how they’d control the pest. So, researchers at Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences set out to quantify how big the problem was. They set up ten one-year trials in four different locations across the state, comparing neonic-treated fields to fields planted with alternative seed treatments. After they pooled and analyzed the data, their preliminary conclusions were that there were no significant differences and that overall, “seedcorn maggots were not a factor in establishing corn” in any of their trials. (They expect to release final results from three years of trials this winter.) In Quebec, researchers did find seedcorn maggot infestations that caused damage to young corn plants, but at the end of the day, the infestations still didn’t result in yield losses. Another big hurdle facing farmers who want to move away from neonics is that they would also likely have to switch to non-genetically modified seed, said Rademacher. “I’m not aware of any seed company that that offers untreated seed in a GMO variety,” he said. If it was available, he would likely know. Not only does Rademacher have a degree in crop science with a focus on pest management, he also has an off-farm job as a conservation agronomist for The Nature Conservancy. In his own fields, he began implementing all kinds of conservation practices and, to ditch neonic coatings on his corn, was able to navigate the accompanying switch to planting non-GMO seed. But even a neonic-skeptical farmer would likely balk at giving up the protection against other pests that genetic modification enables. For example, if corn seed is not genetically modified to withstand glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, farmers would have to stop spraying the widely used weedkiller to avoid killing their corn. “You’re asking people to make not just one big shift but potentially two or more big shifts,” he said. “It’s all or nothing.” One compelling reason to make the switch is cost savings. In Quebec, a group of farmers convened by the University of Vermont last spring all said their seed costs $10–$20 less per bag now that they’re not paying for the neonicotinoid coating. In Iowa, the farmer who paid to have her soybeans coated said she was charged $2/acre—or $1,000 extra for a 500-acre field. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates, seed treatment “may account for around 15 percent of the seed price.” That got Dengler’s attention. With a degree in finance, he was particularly interested in opportunities to cut costs on the farm, and he was intrigued by a PFI farmer who conducted his own field trials on neonics. The results showed that the treatment applied to his soybean seeds might not be necessary: The farmer planted beans without the coating, the plants stayed healthy, and crop yields didn’t drop. “When you tie in the environmental impact of the seed treatment on the soybeans, I was like, ‘I’ll even take a bushel or two less, just because I believe that I’m doing the right thing,’” he said. While he couldn’t see how to do it with corn, he started opting out of neonic treatments on his soybean seeds. After harvest ended, he reported that all but one of his soybean fields yielded better than last year. But a clear takeaway on whether his choice to forgo neonics had an impact would be tough, he said. For one, growing conditions were better this season. Both years were dry, and wet conditions are often what precipitate early-season insect issues. So far, based on the lack of a clear difference, he said adding the neonic treatments “doesn’t seem worth the pay or environmental impacts.” Meanwhile, Rademacher is a few years in. Since planting seeds without neonic coatings, he said his yields might vary a few bushels here or there, but it’s nothing significant. However, he didn’t just change his seeds and continue farming the same way. Instead, he’s investing in an entirely different method of pest control. “As counterintuitive as it seems, our system is to promote insects. We have no tillage, so we don’t destroy their houses every year, and we provide year-round habitat via cover crops,” he said. Each small change adds up, and now, he and his dad are seeing significant numbers of beneficial insects returning, which keeps the bad guys in check. “Today, as we speak in 2024 in Quebec, over half of the corn and soy acreage doesn’t carry any insecticide, and we’re going to have a fantastic year in terms of yield.” In fact, the research that first spurred Douglas’ interest in neonics was on this very topic: In her lab, she accidently discovered that neonics were killing the beneficial beetles that prey on the slugs destroying Pennsylvania farmers’ yields—but not the slugs themselves. The discovery led her to a research trial that ultimately found that in their specific region, neonic treatments could actually reduce yields. Further north, Quebeçois farmers have the biggest head start. During the University of Vermont panel, one said he had learned a simple trick since ditching neonic seed treatments: He waits to see when his neighbor—an organic farmer—is ready to plant, and he follows his lead. That simple adjustment allows him to sidestep early season pest risks. For agronomist Louis Robert, the success of the Quebec government’s decision to move away from neonics on corn and soy seeds is apparent not in what’s being said, but in the silence. After five years, farmers aren’t talking about crop failure at their local meeting places, he said, and he hasn’t seen any media coverage of the neonic ban. Farmers can apply to use neonic-treated seed if they document a need, but almost no one’s doing so, he added. “The most reliable proof is that it’s not even a matter of discussion anymore,” Robert said. “Today, as we speak in 2024 in Quebec, over half of the corn and soy acreage doesn’t carry any insecticide, and we’re going to have a fantastic year in terms of yield. So, the demonstration is right there in front of you.” The post Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need appeared first on Civil Eats.

As he learned the ropes, he began engaging with Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI), a unique organization that attracts out-of-the-box thinkers and tinkerers across a wide spectrum of sustainable agriculture in the Midwest. Soon, he was reading about neonicotinoids—“neonics” for short—now the most common chemicals used to kill bugs in American agriculture. Farmers can spray […] The post Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need appeared first on Civil Eats.

What Our Investigation Revealed
  • Nearly all commodity corn farmers receive seed coated with neonics each season.
  • Many cannot identify the chemical coating on their seeds and only opt for it because a seed salesperson recommends it.
  • Companies have made it nearly impossible for farmers to find corn seed that isn’t coated with neonics.
  • Farmers often feel peer pressure not to ask questions or change their practices in the face of concerns about neonics’ safety.

Like so many people whose lives were upended during the pandemic, Sean Dengler returned to his roots. In 2020, he went back to northern Iowa and joined his father in farming 500 acres of corn and soybeans.

As he learned the ropes, he began engaging with Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI), a unique organization that attracts out-of-the-box thinkers and tinkerers across a wide spectrum of sustainable agriculture in the Midwest. Soon, he was reading about neonicotinoids—“neonics” for short—now the most common chemicals used to kill bugs in American agriculture.

Why It Matters
  • Neonic-treated seeds are planted on approximately 90 million acres of corn fields and more than 40 million acres of soybean fields each year.
  • Research shows neonics threaten pollinators, birds, aquatic organisms, and mammals, and may pose risks to humans.
  • Evidence shows there are no significant yield losses from planting seeds without neonic coatings.
  • Farmers are paying extra for insecticide seed coatings they may not need.

Farmers can spray them on fields, but these insecticides are also attached to seeds as an outer coating, called a seed treatment. As the seeds germinate and grow, the plant’s tissues become toxic to certain pests.

However, neonics impact beneficial insects, too, like bees and other pollinators. Newer research also shows neonics threaten birds and some mammals, suggesting potential human health impacts. In 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the three most common neonics were each likely to harm more than 1,000 endangered species. Also, neonics move through soil into groundwater, contaminating rivers and streams in the Midwest and beyond. Data from 2015 to 2016 showed about half of Americans over three years old were recently exposed to a neonic.

Dengler suspected he had been planting neonic-treated seed, but he wasn’t sure exactly which chemicals the colorful coating was meant to warn him of. He also had no idea if it would be possible for him to order seeds without the treatment. “The corn is usually either red or purple when it comes,” he said. “That’s how it’s always been. You just get it that way.”

In numerous interviews over the past year, other farmers, researchers, and industry insiders described the same scenario to Civil Eats. While the agrichemical industry claims farmers “carefully select the right pesticide for each pest and crop at issue” and “only use pesticides as a last resort,” when it comes to neonics, that is false in most cases. Nearly all commodity corn farmers receive seed coated with neonics at the start of each season; many cannot identify the chemical that’s in the coating and don’t even know if another option exists.

These findings are significant for a few key reasons.

First, the pesticide industry often calls seed treatment environmentally beneficial because it reduces the amount of insecticide applied per acre compared to spraying. This is true. But research shows that the preemptive coating of seed with neonics has resulted in farmers using insecticides, overall, on significantly more total acres than they were a few decades ago. A 2015 study published by researchers Maggie Douglas and John Tooker at Penn State University found that neonic seed treatments are now used on almost triple the area that had once been sprayed with insecticides, indicating their negative impacts could be more widely distributed.

Chart showing a rapid rise in the use of neonicotinoid pesticides between 1995 and 2011. The majority of neonics are used in corn and soybeans. (Source: Douglas and Tooker, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 8, 5088–5097

Chart showing the rise in the use of neonicotinoid pesticides between 1995 and 2011. The majority of neonics are used in corn and soybeans. (Source: Douglas and Tooker, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 8, 5088–5097)

Second, a significant portion of that use may be for nothing. In corn and soy fields, new research and evidence accumulated over the last few years suggest that widespread use of neonic-treated seeds provide minimal benefit to farmers. One study from Quebec helped convince the Canadian province to change its laws to restrict the use of neonic seed treatments. After five years and a 95 percent drop in the use of neonic-coated seeds, there have been no reported impacts on crop yields.

But based on conversations with farmers and other industry insiders, agrichemical companies that sell seeds and pesticides continue to steer farmers toward using neonics on their seeds—and sometimes, there are no other options available. “They scare the farmers and say that you’re going to lose your yield, that you’re going to have crop failure, and the whole grain sector will just collapse,” said Louis Robert, a Canadian agronomist who previously worked for the Quebec government, where he revealed pesticide-industry meddling in research on neonics’ environmental harms. “They go very far in terms of misleading people.”

Chemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide Industry

Read all the stories in our series:

  • Overview: Chemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide Industry
    How the agrichemical industry is shaping public information about the toxicity of pesticides, how they’re being used, and the policies that impact the health of all Americans.
  • Inside Bayer’s State-by-State Efforts to Stop Pesticide Lawsuits
    As the agrichemical giant lays groundwork to fend off Roundup litigation, its use of a playbook for building influence in farm state legislatures has the potential to benefit pesticide companies nationwide.
  • Are Companies Using Carbon Markets to Sell More Pesticides?
    Many programs meant to help farmers address climate change are now owned by companies that sell chemicals, which could boost practices that depend on pesticides rather than those that reduce their use.
  • Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need
    Neonicotinoids coat nearly all the corn and soybean seeds available for planting. Agrichemical companies have designed it that way.

At the same time, the industry has engaged in a broad, sophisticated lobbying and public relations effort to block regulation in the U.S., muddy the research waters, and even influence Google search results for neonics, all of which has been documented in depth by The Intercept.

So, while Europe and Canada have been moving away from the widespread use of neonics, the U.S. has barely budged in its approach. Neonic-treated seeds are planted on nearly 90 million acres of corn fields and more than 40 million acres of soybean fields each year. Only New York has passed a ban that includes eliminating them as coatings on corn and soy seeds—and that law does not go into effect until 2029. (Neonic treatments are common on many other seeds, including wheat, cotton, and vegetables, and farmers’ reliance on them varies across different crops. This investigation focused only on corn and soy, by far the two most widely planted crops in the country.)

Over the course of three weeks in October, Civil Eats sent at least four interview requests and detailed questions to CropLife America, which represents the pesticide industry, but did not receive a response. We also sent emails to press contacts at the companies that make or sell pesticide and seed products mentioned in this story: Corteva (which owns Pioneer) and Winfield United (owned by Land O’Lakes) did not respond. A spokesperson for Syngenta directed Civil Eats to “Growing Matters,” an initiative of the American Seed Trade Association, and sent a statement that reads, “Planting seeds treated with crop-protection products is a more precise way for farmers to protect their crops from early season pests and diseases. As you can see from our global Seedcare Institute website, Syngenta is a leader in providing treated seeds of the highest quality and committed to helping farmers achieve their yield goals sustainably.”

No Knowledge, No Choice

For many years, Kynetec, a global data company, asked farmers to share which insecticides were on their seeds and then provided the federal government with estimates of how many acres were being planted with the chemicals included. But because farmers were so often unable to name the specific chemicals, it was impossible to warrant a reliable data set. They stopped in 2014.

A few years later, in a 2020 paper, researchers reported in the journal Bioscience that only 65 percent of corn growers and 62 percent of soybean growers could name the seed treatment product they were using. Even if they did know the product, that didn’t mean they knew what was in it. In fact, in 15 to 35 percent of cases, corn growers incorrectly identified the pesticides included in the treatment.

It speaks to why Damon Smith’s colleagues at the University of Wisconsin’s Nutrient and Pest Management Program dreamed up a resource dubbed “What’s on your seed?” When Smith, a biologist who studies field crop diseases, started working on it around 2010, the document was a page or two long, and they updated it every few years. Today, it’s a six-page PDF that the team updates at least once a year to keep up with new seed treatments hitting the market.

Very few of those are new chemicals entirely. Most are new combinations of a neonic (or another insecticide) paired with anywhere from one to four fungicides, and maybe a nematicide, a chemical that targets pests called nematodes.

an illustration showing eight of the products that contain the neonicotinoid pesticide thiamethoxam - names include Cruiser 5FS, Avicta Duo 250, Seed Shield MAX Beans, and more. (Illustration by Civil Eats)

Illustration by Civil Eats (click for a larger version)

“There’s quite a few products out there, and it’s gotten increasingly complicated,” Smith said.

Sales agronomists who work for seed companies, farmers said, sell product packages based mainly on their marketed “yield potential” and are unlikely to talk up the names of pesticides included in the coating. And they emphasize the need for seed coatings as insurance against crop loss.

“The way it often gets marketed to [farmers] is, they get one chance a year to get it right,” explained Mac Erhardt, co-owner of Albert Lea Seed, a small, family-owned seed company based in Minnesota and Iowa. “The big chemical companies have been pretty successful at distributing counter-information where they show, ‘Well, if you plant naked seed, you’re giving up five bushels an acre.’” Six or seven years ago, before his company made a full switch to selling non-GMO and organic seeds, Erhardt said his contracts with big seed companies required him to treat corn seed with neonics before selling it.

With soybeans, the system works a little differently, and farmers are able to select seed treatments at the time of sale.

One Iowa farmer compared soybean seed selection to a car wash. Instead of exterior, interior, and a wax, it’s neonicotinoid, fungicide, and a nematicide.

One Iowa farmer, who asked not to be named, compared the process to a car wash. “You can pick what you want on the screen, and then it formulates it and puts it through,” she said. Instead of exterior, interior, and a wax, it’s neonicotinoid, fungicide, and a nematicide.

Still, farmers said they almost always defer to the seed dealers and are often unaware of what the treatments they’re selecting consist of. “From a farmer’s perspective, we want a seed to be protected, so we just trust that whatever potion they put on the seed, it’s going to be okay. They’re not in the business of selling seed that will yield less, so we just put our trust in them,” she said. “If we had real choices, those that know insecticides like neonics are harmful, we’re not going to push that button.”

Fears About Speaking Out Against Treated Seeds

Pesticide companies are so entrenched in the culture of agricultural communities, asking questions about insecticides and their merits or detriments also can feel taboo. One reason this farmer did not want to be named was because she thought, with all of the seed contracts she’d signed over the years, that it was possible she had signed a non-disclosure agreement without realizing it.

For others, it’s much more personal. After Frank Rademacher, who has been farming corn and soybeans with his dad in east-central Illinois since 2018, talked about neonics to a reporter at a farming publication, another farmer yelled at him in public and accused him of hurting agriculture.

Estimated agricultural use of the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam, by year and crop, between 1992 and 2019. Corn and soybeans are by far the crops with the most thiamethoxam use. (Source: U.S. Geological Survey data)

Estimated agricultural use of the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam, by year and crop, between 1992 and 2019. 2014 was the last year that Kynetec provided USGS with data that included seed treatment, so the 2015 drop-off shows how much use is in seed coatings.
(Source: U.S. Geological Survey data)

Rademacher said that many farmers he encounters have a vague, visceral sense that there may be risks associated with the colorful dust that blows into the air as the high-powered vacuum system shoots seeds into the ground and the tractor shakes and bumps around. But pesticides are so commonplace that at a forum he attended, farmers laughed about which ones cause rashes and which lead to headaches. With neonics, he said, they’re grateful to have insecticides that are not as acutely toxic as the ones their parents handled. If they try not to touch the seeds with their bare hands or breathe too much of the dust in, it feels like enough.

“The products that they were using growing up, they were just horrible,” he said of farmers in their 50s and older like his dad, who might have been exposed to insecticides like DDT, malathion, and chlorpyrifos that have now been banned or phased out. “This is kind of an invisible issue. It takes away a lot of the acute exposure, and what you trade is the long-term personal and environmental low-level exposure.”

infographic showing how complicated it is to find out what chemicals are included in a treated seed product. (Illustration by Civil Eats)

Illustration by Civil Eats

Sean Dengler worried that even asking questions about neonics when buying his seed would upset others in his small farming community, some of whom he had known since childhood and considered friends. “My dad’s very conventional, and I don’t wanna make him feel uncomfortable in that way. It’s kind of like a peer pressure type of thing,” he said. But Dengler  recognized the power that gave the industry. “It’s a good thing for big business. You get everyone on one side, and you can’t have people think differently.”

With the name of Dengler’s product in hand, Civil Eats tried to find out for him if the soybean treatment he had used contained a neonic. Because it was a newer product and wasn’t yet listed in Damon Smith’s resource, it took significant searching and emailing to track down the chemicals included. The insecticide was thiamethoxam—one of the most common neonics.

Later, Dengler got his chance to ask about what was included in his corn seed treatments. Attending a plot tour hosted by Pioneer, one of the major seed companies, he learned that the corn seed had “seven fungicide treatments and two insecticide treatments on it. That’s the first time during my farming career I heard anything about it,” he explained by email to Civil Eats.

Leaving Neonic-Coated Seeds Behind

For those who do decide to swim upstream, the current encouraging them to stay the usual course is strong.

“Even though there’s data showing that, ‘Hey, with a few tweaks, you can change your farming practices and you don’t need to use insecticides on your seed,’ [farmers] still want that protection. They don’t want that one-out-of-every-10-years problem,” said Erhardt, from Albert Lea Seed.

That rare issue is the sticking point: Neonics are very good at killing some pests that can cause serious damage to crops, and companies are quick to point to that. One industry document created by CropLife to promote neonics on seeds highlights a study that found the number of plants that survived the season increased 18 percent, and crop yield increased by 12 percent, “when neonicotinoid-treated corn seed was planted into corn fields with high wireworm populations.”

“Even though there’s data showing that, ‘Hey, with a few tweaks, you can change your farming practices and you don’t need to use insecticides on your seed,’ [farmers] still want that protection.”

In other words, if you use neonics in a field infested with wireworm, it really helps. But using it on every field preventatively is like taking an antibiotic every day in case an infection pops up at some point. “Most of the pests that neonics really work well on are highly sporadic,” said Maggie Douglas, who is now an assistant professor of environmental studies at Dickinson College. “The question is: How many farmers are having a seedcorn maggot infestation in their field in a given year?”

Seedcorn maggots are dreaded for their ability to burrow into seeds and kill a crop off the bat. But in New York, at least, there’s a clear answer. As the campaign to pass a law banning the use of neonicotinoid coatings on corn and soybean seeds heated up, farm groups were concerned, specifically, about how they’d control the pest.

So, researchers at Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences set out to quantify how big the problem was. They set up ten one-year trials in four different locations across the state, comparing neonic-treated fields to fields planted with alternative seed treatments. After they pooled and analyzed the data, their preliminary conclusions were that there were no significant differences and that overall, “seedcorn maggots were not a factor in establishing corn” in any of their trials. (They expect to release final results from three years of trials this winter.) In Quebec, researchers did find seedcorn maggot infestations that caused damage to young corn plants, but at the end of the day, the infestations still didn’t result in yield losses.

Another big hurdle facing farmers who want to move away from neonics is that they would also likely have to switch to non-genetically modified seed, said Rademacher. “I’m not aware of any seed company that that offers untreated seed in a GMO variety,” he said.

If it was available, he would likely know. Not only does Rademacher have a degree in crop science with a focus on pest management, he also has an off-farm job as a conservation agronomist for The Nature Conservancy. In his own fields, he began implementing all kinds of conservation practices and, to ditch neonic coatings on his corn, was able to navigate the accompanying switch to planting non-GMO seed. But even a neonic-skeptical farmer would likely balk at giving up the protection against other pests that genetic modification enables. For example, if corn seed is not genetically modified to withstand glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, farmers would have to stop spraying the widely used weedkiller to avoid killing their corn.

“You’re asking people to make not just one big shift but potentially two or more big shifts,” he said. “It’s all or nothing.”

One compelling reason to make the switch is cost savings. In Quebec, a group of farmers convened by the University of Vermont last spring all said their seed costs $10–$20 less per bag now that they’re not paying for the neonicotinoid coating. In Iowa, the farmer who paid to have her soybeans coated said she was charged $2/acre—or $1,000 extra for a 500-acre field. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates, seed treatment “may account for around 15 percent of the seed price.”

That got Dengler’s attention. With a degree in finance, he was particularly interested in opportunities to cut costs on the farm, and he was intrigued by a PFI farmer who conducted his own field trials on neonics. The results showed that the treatment applied to his soybean seeds might not be necessary: The farmer planted beans without the coating, the plants stayed healthy, and crop yields didn’t drop.

“When you tie in the environmental impact of the seed treatment on the soybeans, I was like, ‘I’ll even take a bushel or two less, just because I believe that I’m doing the right thing,’” he said. While he couldn’t see how to do it with corn, he started opting out of neonic treatments on his soybean seeds.

After harvest ended, he reported that all but one of his soybean fields yielded better than last year. But a clear takeaway on whether his choice to forgo neonics had an impact would be tough, he said. For one, growing conditions were better this season. Both years were dry, and wet conditions are often what precipitate early-season insect issues. So far, based on the lack of a clear difference, he said adding the neonic treatments “doesn’t seem worth the pay or environmental impacts.”

Meanwhile, Rademacher is a few years in. Since planting seeds without neonic coatings, he said his yields might vary a few bushels here or there, but it’s nothing significant.

However, he didn’t just change his seeds and continue farming the same way. Instead, he’s investing in an entirely different method of pest control. “As counterintuitive as it seems, our system is to promote insects. We have no tillage, so we don’t destroy their houses every year, and we provide year-round habitat via cover crops,” he said. Each small change adds up, and now, he and his dad are seeing significant numbers of beneficial insects returning, which keeps the bad guys in check.

“Today, as we speak in 2024 in Quebec, over half of the corn and soy acreage doesn’t carry any insecticide, and we’re going to have a fantastic year in terms of yield.”

In fact, the research that first spurred Douglas’ interest in neonics was on this very topic: In her lab, she accidently discovered that neonics were killing the beneficial beetles that prey on the slugs destroying Pennsylvania farmers’ yields—but not the slugs themselves. The discovery led her to a research trial that ultimately found that in their specific region, neonic treatments could actually reduce yields.

Further north, Quebeçois farmers have the biggest head start. During the University of Vermont panel, one said he had learned a simple trick since ditching neonic seed treatments: He waits to see when his neighbor—an organic farmer—is ready to plant, and he follows his lead. That simple adjustment allows him to sidestep early season pest risks.

For agronomist Louis Robert, the success of the Quebec government’s decision to move away from neonics on corn and soy seeds is apparent not in what’s being said, but in the silence. After five years, farmers aren’t talking about crop failure at their local meeting places, he said, and he hasn’t seen any media coverage of the neonic ban. Farmers can apply to use neonic-treated seed if they document a need, but almost no one’s doing so, he added.

“The most reliable proof is that it’s not even a matter of discussion anymore,” Robert said. “Today, as we speak in 2024 in Quebec, over half of the corn and soy acreage doesn’t carry any insecticide, and we’re going to have a fantastic year in terms of yield. So, the demonstration is right there in front of you.”

The post Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need appeared first on Civil Eats.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Legal Immunity for Pesticide Companies Removed from EPA Funding Bill

January 6, 2026 – After a legislative fight led by Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), members of Congress stripped a controversial provision out of the latest version of a bill that funds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bill is expected to move forward in the House this week, as lawmakers rush to finalize the 2026 […] The post Legal Immunity for Pesticide Companies Removed from EPA Funding Bill appeared first on Civil Eats.

January 6, 2026 – After a legislative fight led by Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), members of Congress stripped a controversial provision out of the latest version of a bill that funds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bill is expected to move forward in the House this week, as lawmakers rush to finalize the 2026 appropriations process by Jan. 30 to avoid another government shutdown. The provision, referred to as Section 435, would have made it harder for individuals to sue pesticide manufacturers over alleged health harms. Bayer, which for years has been battling lawsuits alleging its herbicide Roundup causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, has lobbied for the provision, among other political and legal efforts to protect the corporation’s interests. When the provision first appeared in the bill earlier this year, Pingree quickly introduced an amendment to remove it. At that time, she wasn’t able to get enough votes to take it out. “It had fairly strong Republican support,” she told Civil Eats in an exclusive interview. (In December, the Trump administration also sided with Bayer in a Supreme Court case that could deliver a similar level of legal immunity through the courts instead of legislation.) Pingree said she kept up the battle, and, over the last several months a number of other groups put pressure on Congress to remove the rider, including environmental organizations, organic advocates, and MAHA Action, the biggest organization supporting the Trump administration and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again agenda. MAHA Action celebrated the development with a post on X that said, “WE DID IT!,” though they did not mention Pingree. Kelly Ryerson, a prominent MAHA supporter who led efforts to lobby against the rider, thanked a group of Republicans on X for the end result. Pingree said she’s happy to share the credit with advocates. “It was my fight, but nobody does this alone. There are advocates on the environment and organic side that have been at this for a long time. But Republicans got a lot of calls going into the markup, they knew there was a lot of interest on the MAHA side,” she said. “It’s important to have a win to show there is widespread bipartisan support for restricting these toxic chemicals in our food and our environment.” Pingree said she’s been told the rider will likely come up again if the farm bill process restarts, and its supporters could also try to insert it in other legislation. The funding bill also rejects deep cuts to the EPA budget that the Trump administration requested and instead proposes a small decrease of around 4 percent. And, like the agriculture appropriations bill passed in November, it includes language that restricts the ability of the EPA to reorganize or cut significant staff without notifying Congress. (Link to this post.) The post Legal Immunity for Pesticide Companies Removed from EPA Funding Bill appeared first on Civil Eats.

10 Farm Bill Proposals to Watch in 2026

Called marker bills, the proposals cover a wide range of farm group priorities, from access to credit to forever-chemical contamination to investment in organic agriculture. House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pennsylvania) told Politico in December that he would restart the farm bill process this month. In an interview with Agri-Pulse, Senate Agriculture Committee Chair […] The post 10 Farm Bill Proposals to Watch in 2026 appeared first on Civil Eats.

As lawmakers wrapped up 2025 and agriculture leaders signaled they intend to move forward on a five-year farm bill early this year, many introduced bills that would typically be included in that larger legislative package. Called marker bills, the proposals cover a wide range of farm group priorities, from access to credit to forever-chemical contamination to investment in organic agriculture. House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pennsylvania) told Politico in December that he would restart the farm bill process this month. In an interview with Agri-Pulse, Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Arkansas) said his chamber would work on it “right after the first of the year.” But most experts say there’s no clear path forward for a new farm bill. The last five-year farm bill expired in September 2023. Because Congress had not completed a new one, they extended the previous bill, then extended it again in 2024. In 2025, Republicans included in their One Big Beautiful Bill the biggest-ever cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and a boost in commodity crop subsidies, and later extended other farm programs in the bill package that ended the government shutdown. The SNAP actions torpedoed Democrats’ willingness to compromise (some have signaled they won’t support a farm bill unless it rolls back some of the cuts), while the extension of the big farm programs took pressure off both parties. Still, that didn’t stop lawmakers from introducing and reintroducing over the last month many marker bills they hope to get in an actual farm bill package if things change. Here are 10 recent proposals important to farmers, most of which have bipartisan support. Fair Credit for Farmers Act: Makes changes to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) to make it easier for farmers to get loans. Introduced by Representative Alma Adams (D-North Carolina) in the House and Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont) in the Senate. Key supporters: National Family Farm Coalition, RAFI. FARM Home Loans Act: Increases rural homebuyers’ access to Farm Credit loans by expanding the definition of “rural area” to include areas with larger populations. Introduced by Representatives Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Michigan) and Bill Huizeng (R-Michigan). Key supporters: Farm Credit Council. USDA Loan Modernization Act: Updates USDA loan requirements to allow farmers with at least a 50 percent operational interest to qualify. Introduced by Representatives Mike Bost (R-Illinois) and Nikki Budzinski (D-Illinois). Key supporters: Illinois Corn Growers Association, Illinois Pork Producers Association. Relief for Farmers Hit With PFAS Act: Sets up a USDA grant program for states to help farmers affected by forever-chemical contamination in their fields, test soil, monitor farmer health impacts, and conduct research on farms. Introduced by Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire) in the Senate and Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Mike Lawler (R-New York) in the House. Key supporters: Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association. EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act: Requires the USDA to weigh factors including environmental sustainability, social and racial equity, worker well-being, and animal welfare in federal food purchasing, and helps smaller farms and food companies meet requirements to become USDA vendors. Introduced by Senator Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) and several co-sponsors in the Senate, and Representative Alma Adams (D-North Carolina) and several co-sponsors in the House. Key supporters: National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. AGRITOURISM Act: Designates an Agritourism Advisor at the USDA to support the economic viability of family farms. Introduced by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) and several co-sponsors in the Senate, and Representatives Suhas Subramanyam (D-Virginia) and Dan Newhouse (R-Washington) in the House. Key supporters: Brewers Association, WineAmerica. Domestic Organic Investment Act: Creates a USDA grant program to fund expansion of the domestic certified-organic food supply chain, including expanding storage, processing, and distribution. Introduced by Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) in the Senate, and Representatives Andrea Salinas (D-Oregon) and Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisconsin) in the House. Key supporters: Organic Trade Association. Zero Food Waste Act: Creates a new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant program to fund projects that prevent, divert, or recycle food waste. Introduced by Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Julia Brownley (D-California) in the House, and Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) in the Senate. Key supporters: Natural Resources Defense Council, ReFed. LOCAL Foods Act: Allows farmers to process animals on their farms without meeting certain regulations if the meat will not be sold. Introduced by Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont) and several co-sponsors in the Senate, and Representative Eugene Vindman (D-Virginia) and several co-sponsors in the House. Key supporters: Rural Vermont, National Family Farm Coalition. PROTEIN Act: Directs more than $500 million in federal support over the next five years toward research and development for “alternative proteins.” Introduced by Senator Adam Schiff (D-California) in the Senate, and Representative Julia Brownley (D-California) in the House. Key supporters: Good Food Institute, Plant-Based Foods Institute. The post 10 Farm Bill Proposals to Watch in 2026 appeared first on Civil Eats.

China and South Korea Pledge to Bolster Ties as Regional Tensions Rise

South Korea and China have pledged to boost trade and safeguard regional stability

BEIJING (AP) — China and South Korea’s leaders pledged to boost trade and safeguard regional stability on Monday during a visit to Beijing by the South Korean president that was overshadowed by North Korea’s recent ballistic missile tests.South Korean President Lee Jae Myung met Chinese President Xi Jinping as part of his four-day trip to China — his first since taking office, in June.As Xi hosted Lee at the imposing Great Hall of the People, the Chinese president stressed the two countries’ “important responsibilities in maintaining regional peace and promoting global development,” according to a readout of their meeting broadcast by state-run CCTV.Lee spoke about opening “a new chapter in the development of Korea-China relations” during “changing times.”“The two countries should make joint contributions to promote peace, which is the foundation for prosperity and growth,” Lee said.The visit comes as China wants to shore up regional support amid rising tensions with Japan. Beijing and South Korea’s ties themselves have fluctuated in recent years, with frictions over South Korea’s hosting of U.S. military troops and armaments. North Korea launches ballistic missiles ahead of the meeting Just hours before Lee’s arrival in China, North Korea launched several ballistic missiles into the sea, including, it said, hypersonic missiles, which travel at five times the speed of sound and are extra-difficult to detect and intercept.The tests came as Pyongyang criticized a U.S. attack on Venezuela that included the removal of its strongman leader Nicolás Maduro.North Korea, which has long feared the U.S. might seek regime change in Pyongyang, criticized the attack as a wild violation of Venezuela's sovereignty and an example of the “rogue and brutal nature of the U.S.”China had also condemned the U.S. attack, which it said violated international law and threatened peace in Latin America.China is North Korea’s strongest backer and economic lifeline amid U.S. sanctions targeting Pyongyang's missile and nuclear program. China’s frictions with Japan also loom over the visit Lee’s visit also coincided, more broadly, with rising tensions between China and Japan over recent comments by Japan’s new leader that Tokyo could intervene in a potential Chinese attack on Taiwan, the island democracy China claims as its own.Last week, China staged large-scale military drills around the island for two days to warn against separatist and “external interference” forces. In his meeting with Lee, Xi mentioned China and Korea’s historical rivalry against Japan, calling on the two countries to “join hands to defend the fruits of victory in World War II and safeguard peace and stability in Northeast Asia.”Regarding South Korea's military cooperation with the U.S., Lee said during an interview with CCTV ahead of his trip that it shouldn't mean that South Korea-China relations should move toward confrontation. He added that his visit to China aimed to “minimize or eliminate past misunderstandings or contradictions (and) elevate and develop South Korea-China relations to a new stage.” Agreements in technology, trade and transportation China and South Korea maintain robust trade ties, with bilateral trade reaching about $273 billion in 2024.During their meeting, Xi and Lee oversaw the signing of 15 cooperation agreements in areas such as technology, trade, transportation and environmental protection, CCTV reported.Earlier on Monday, Lee had attended a business forum in Beijing with representatives of major South Korean and Chinese companies, including Samsung, Hyundai, LG and Alibaba Group.At that meeting, Lee and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng oversaw the signing of agreements in areas such as consumer goods, agriculture, biotechnology and entertainment.AP reporter Hyung-jin Kim in Seoul contributed to this report.Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

GOP lawmakers’ power transfers are reshaping North Carolina

North Carolina’s Republican-led legislature has siphoned off some of the governor’s traditional powers

North Carolina voters have chosen Democrats in three straight elections for governor; the state’s Republican-led legislature has countered by siphoning off some of the powers that traditionally came with the job. These power grabs have had a profound effect on both democracy in the state and on the everyday lives of North Carolina residents, Democrats argue. The changes are “weakening environmental protections, raising energy costs, and politicizing election administration,” Josh Stein, North Carolina’s governor, said in a text message responding to questions from ProPublica. Republican leaders in the General Assembly did not respond to requests for comment or emailed questions about the power shifts. In the past, they have defended these actions as reflecting the will of voters, with the senate president describing one key bill as balancing “appointment power between the legislative and executive branches.” Former state Sen. Bob Rucho, a Republican picked to sit on the state elections board after lawmakers shifted control from Stein to the Republican state auditor, said the changes would fix problems created by Democrats. “Republicans are very proud of what’s been accomplished,” Rucho said. Shifting authority over the elections board, he argued, would “reestablish a level of confidence in the electoral process” that Democrats had lost. ProPublica recently chronicled the nearly 10-year push to take over the board, which sets rules and settles disputes in elections in the closely divided swing state. Decisions made by the board’s new leadership — particularly on the locations and numbers of early voting sites — could affect outcomes in the 2026 midterms. Below, we examine how other power transfers driven by North Carolina’s Republican legislature are reshaping everything from the regulations that protect residents’ drinking water to the rates they pay for electricity to the culture of their state university system. Related “Biblical justice for all”: How North Carolina’s chief justice transformed his state Environmental Management Commission What it is: The Environmental Management Commission adopts rules that protect the state’s air and water, such as those that regulate industries discharging potentially carcinogenic chemicals in rivers. Power transfer: In October 2023, Republican legislators passed a law shifting the power to appoint the majority of the commission’s members from the governor to themselves and the state’s commissioner of agriculture, who is a Republican. What’s happened since: The new Republican-led commission has stymied several efforts by the state’s Department of Environmental Quality to regulate a potentially harmful chemical, 1,4-dioxane, in drinking water. Advocates for businesses, including the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce, had criticized some regulations and urged the commission to intervene. “Clean water is worth the cost, but regulators should not arbitrarily establish a level that is low for the sake of being low,” the chamber said in a press release. The Southern Environmental Law Center, which has pressed the state to regulate the chemical, has said the commission’s rulings are “crippling the state’s ability to protect its waterways, drinking water sources, and communities from harmful pollution.” Utilities Commission What it is: The North Carolina Utilities Commission regulates the rates and services of the state’s public utilities, which include providers of electricity, natural gas, water and telephone service. The commission also oversees movers, brokers, ferryboats and wastewater. Power transfer: In June 2025, a trial court sided with the General Assembly in allowing a law passed in 2024 to take effect, removing the governor’s power to appoint a majority of the commission’s members and transferring that power to legislative leaders and the state treasurer, who is a Republican. What’s happened since: The state’s primary utility, Duke Energy, has backed off from some plans to rely more on clean energy and retire coal-fired power plants. In November, the company said it would seek the commission’s approval to raise rates by 15%. In response to a new resource plan the company filed in October, the executive director of NC WARN, a climate and environmental justice nonprofit, said in a statement that Duke’s actions would cause “power bills to double or triple over time” and increase carbon emissions. The state’s governor and attorney general, both Democrats, have said they oppose the rate hike. Garrett Poorman, a spokesperson for Duke Energy, said that the company is “focused on keeping costs as low as possible while meeting growing energy needs across our footprint” and that the company had recently lowered its forecasted costs. The commission will decide whether to approve the proposed rate hikes in 2026. University of North Carolina System What it is: The University of North Carolina System encompasses 17 institutions and more than 250,000 students, including at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, considered one of best in the nation. Power transfer: Though the legislature has traditionally appointed the majority of the trustees for individual schools, the governor also made a share of these appointments. In 2016, the legislature passed a law that eliminated the governor’s ability to make university trustee appointments. In 2023, changes inserted into the state budget bill gave the legislature power to appoint all of the members of the state board that oversees community colleges and most of those colleges’ trustees. The governor had previously chosen some board members and trustees. What’s happened since: The system has created a center for conservative thought, repealed racial equity initiatives, suspended a left-leaning professor, gutted a civil rights center led by a professor long critical of Republican lawmakers and appointed politically connected Republicans to the boards. Republicans say the moves are reversing the system’s long-term leftward drift. “Ultimately, the board stays in for a while, and you change administrators, and then start to moderate the culture of the UNC schools,” said David Lewis, a former Republican House member who helped drive the changes to the university system. Democrats, including former Gov. Roy Cooper, have criticized the board changes as partisan meddling. “These actions will ultimately hurt our state’s economy and reputation,” Cooper said in a 2023 press release. Read more about this topic Democrats sound alarm on Trump administration’s attacks on voting rights “Still angry”: Voters say they won’t forget that the North Carolina GOP tried to trash their ballots “We will bring this home”: North Carolina Democrats confident they’ll defeat GOP election denial The post GOP lawmakers’ power transfers are reshaping North Carolina appeared first on Salon.com.

Our Biggest Farming Stories of 2025

Trump’s tariffs created more headaches for farmers, particularly soybean producers, who saw their biggest buyer—China—walk away during the trade fight as their costs for fertilizer and other materials increased. Farming groups also protested when the Trump administration announced it would import 80,000 metric tons of beef from Argentina, about four times the regular quota. We […] The post Our Biggest Farming Stories of 2025 appeared first on Civil Eats.

When we started Civil Eats, we sought to report on farming from a different perspective, focusing on underrepresented voices and issues. This year, most American farmers faced significant challenges, and we strove to tell their stories. Federal budget cuts were a major disruption, impacting USDA grants that helped farmers build soil health, increase biodiversity, generate renewable energy, and sell their crops to local schools and food banks, among other projects. Trump’s tariffs created more headaches for farmers, particularly soybean producers, who saw their biggest buyer—China—walk away during the trade fight as their costs for fertilizer and other materials increased. Farming groups also protested when the Trump administration announced it would import 80,000 metric tons of beef from Argentina, about four times the regular quota. We also identified as many solutions as we could in this turbulent year by highlighting farmers’ extraordinary resilience and resourcefulness, from finding sustainable ways to grow food to fighting corporate consolidation to opening their own meat-processing cooperative. Here are our biggest farming stories of 2025, in chronological order. Farmers Need Help to Survive. A New Crop of Farm Advocates Is on the Way. Farmers with expertise in law and finance have long guided the farming community through tough situations, but their numbers have been dropping. Now, thanks to federally funded training, farm advocates are coming back. California Decides What ‘Regenerative Agriculture’ Means. Sort of. A new definition for an old way of farming may help California soil, but it won’t mean organic. Butterbee Farm, in Maryland, has received several federal grants that have been crucial for the farm’s survival. (Photo credit: L.A. Birdie Photography) Trump’s Funding Freeze Creates Chaos and Financial Distress for Farmers Efforts to transition farms to regenerative agriculture are stalled, and the path forward is unclear. How Trump’s Tariffs Will Affect Farmers and Food Prices Economists say tariffs will likely lead to higher food prices, while farmers are worried about fertilizer imports and their export markets. USDA Continues to Roll Out Deeper Cuts to Farm Grants: A List In addition to the end of two local food programs that support schools and food banks sourcing from small farms, more cuts are likely. USDA Prioritizes Economic Relief for Commodity Farmers The agency announced it will roll out economic relief payments to growers of corn, soybeans, oilseeds, and other row crops. Will Local Food Survive Trump’s USDA? Less than two months in, Trump’s USDA is bulldozing efforts that help small farms and food producers sell healthy food directly to schools, food banks, and their local communities. USDA Unfreezes Energy Funds for Farmers, but Demands They Align on DEI USDA is requesting farmers make changes to their projects so that they align with directives on energy production and DEI, a task experts say may not be legal or possible. Ranchers herd cattle across open range in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, New Mexico, where conservation initiatives help restore grasslands and protect water resources. (Photo courtesy Ariel Greenwood) Trump Announces Higher Tariffs on Major Food and Agricultural Trade Partners The president says the tariffs will boost American manufacturing and make the country wealthy, but many expect farmers to suffer losses and food prices to rise. USDA Introduces Policy Agenda Focused on Small Farms Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins rolls out a 10-point plan that includes environmental deregulation and utilizing healthy food programs that have recently lost funding. USDA Drops Rules Requiring Farmers to Record Their Use of the Most Toxic Pesticides Pesticide watchdog groups say the regulations should be strengthened, not thrown out. Conservation Work on Farms and Ranches Could Take a Hit as USDA Cuts Staff Close to 2,400 employees of the Natural Resources Conservation Service have accepted an offer to resign, leaving fewer hands to protect rural landscapes. USDA Cancels Additional Grants Funding Land Access and Training for Young Farmers The future of other awards in the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program remains unclear. House Bill Would Halt Assessment of PFAS Risk on Farms The bill also strengthens EPA authority around pesticide labeling, which could prevent states from adopting their own versions of labels. Should Regenerative Farmers Pin Hopes on RFK Jr.’s MAHA? While the Make America Health Again movement supports alternative farming, few of Trump’s policies promote healthy agricultural landscapes. A leaked version of the second MAHA Commission Report underscores these concerns. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2024, introduces Willie Nelson at Farm Aid’s 40th anniversary this year, in St. Paul, Minnesota. (Photo credit: Lisa Held) At 40, Farm Aid Is Still About Music. It’s Also a Movement. Willie Nelson launched the music festival in 1985 as a fundraiser to save family farms. With corporate consolidation a continuing threat to farms, it’s now a platform for populist organizing, too. Agriculture Secretary Confirms US Plan to Buy Beef from Argentina Brooke Rollins on Tuesday defended a Trump administration plan that has ignited criticism from farm groups and some Republicans. For Farmers, the Government Shutdown Adds More Challenges With no access to local ag-related offices, critical loans, or disaster assistance, farmers are facing even more stressors. Farmers Struggle With Tariffs, Despite China Deal to Buy US Soybeans While the Supreme Court considers Trump’s tariffs, the farm economy falters. This Farmer-Owned Meat Processing Co-op in Tennessee Changes the Game A Q&A with Lexy Close of the Appalachian Producers Cooperative, who says the new facility has dramatically decreased processing wait times and could revive the area’s local meat economy. Farmers Face Prospect of Skyrocketing Healthcare Premiums More than a quarter of U.S. farmers rely on the Affordable Care Act, but Biden-era tax credits expire at the end of the year. After 150 Years, California’s Sugar Beet Industry Comes to an End The Imperial Valley might be the best place in the world to grow beets. What went wrong? Trump Farmer Bailout Primarily Benefits Commodity Farms Of the $12 billion the administration will send to farmers, $11 billion is reserved for ranchers and major row crop farmers. The post Our Biggest Farming Stories of 2025 appeared first on Civil Eats.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.