This Act would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to require formal coordination between the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of Agriculture on risk mitigation measures for pesticides. It also requires an economic analysis of the costs of such measures to growers, state lead agencies, and other affected entities, with the analysis published in the public docket.
The bill further imposes coordination for data and information used in registration decisions, and it provides a waiver pathway for specific actions if agreed by the Administrator, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the registrant.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds a new coordination mandate between the EPA Administrator and the Secretary of Agriculture for risk mitigation measures, and requires an economic analysis of costs to growers and others. It also requires coordination of data used in pesticide registration decisions and adds a waiver option for specific actions.
Who It Affects
Directly affects federal regulators (EPA; USDA’s Office of Pest Management Policy), pesticide registrants, and agricultural producers (grows and other affected entities) along with state lead agencies responsible for implementation.
Why It Matters
Instituting formal, auditable coordination and cost transparency changes the way pesticide risk decisions are made, tying regulatory actions more closely to agricultural economics and data availability.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The USDA CROP Act of 2025 adds a formal coordination framework between the EPA and the USDA around pesticide risk mitigation. When risk mitigation measures are required for a pesticide, the EPA Administrator must work with the Secretary of Agriculture to develop those measures and must publish an economic analysis in the public docket that estimates the cost impacts on growers, state lead agencies, and other affected entities, including potential changes to usage and labeling.
The bill also requires the two agencies to coordinate the collection and use of data relevant to registration decisions, including agronomic use data from the Department of Agriculture and industry, and to disclose in the docket how such data was used or why it was not used. In addition, for actions related to reasonable and prudent measures under sections of the Endangered Species Act, the Administrator must coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture and other relevant agencies to review options, consider alternatives, and provide feedback on decisions affecting end users of pesticides.
A waiver mechanism allows coordination requirements to be modified for a specific action if the Administrator, Secretary of Agriculture, and the registrant agree, with the agreement published in the docket.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new coordination requirement between the EPA and the Secretary of Agriculture for pesticide risk mitigation.
An economic analysis of cost impacts on growers, state agencies, and other affected entities must be published in the action's docket.
Coordination extends to data and information used in registration decisions, including agronomic-use data and availability of alternatives.
The Administrator must describe how data was used and justify any data not used in decision making, in the docket.
A waiver mechanism lets agencies and the registrant tailor coordination for a specific action, with the agreement published in the docket.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This Act may be cited as the USDA Communication Regarding Oversight of Pesticides Act of 2025, or the USDA CROP Act of 2025. The short title provides a clear legislative umbrella for the coordination framework introduced in the bill.
Coordination between EPA and USDA
Section 2 adds detailed coordinating requirements to Section 3 of FIFRA. It creates four subsections that (i) bind EPA and USDA to coordinate on risk mitigation measures and require an in-docket economic analysis of costs to growers and other affected entities; (ii) require coordination of data and information related to registrations, including agronomic use data from USDA and industry, and outline how such data will be used or not used in decisions; (iii) mandate coordination with Interior and Commerce on reasonable and prudent actions under the Endangered Species Act, ensuring options are considered in a manner consistent with risk-benefit evaluations; and (iv) establish a waiver mechanism allowing coordination requirements to be modified for a specific action if the Administrator, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the registrant agree, with publication in the docket. These provisions formalize interagency collaboration and introduce explicit transparency in decision-making processes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Commercial growers and farming operations receive clearer visibility into the anticipated costs of proposed risk mitigation measures through published economic analyses.
- State lead agricultural agencies gain improved data access and cost information to inform implementation and compliance planning.
- Pesticide registrants and manufacturers benefit from a structured, documented coordination process that can clarify expectations and reduce regulatory ambiguity.
- Agricultural industry associations gain from standardized data-sharing practices and more predictable regulatory outcomes.
- EPA and USDA’s Office of Pest Management Policy receive a formal mechanism to align policy goals with agricultural realities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Growers may incur costs related to labeling changes, altered use requirements, or other risk-mitigation implementations described in the docket’s economic analysis.
- State lead agencies bear administrative and data-collection costs associated with cross-agency coordination and demographic-specific analyses.
- Pesticide registrants face costs from additional data sharing requirements and potential changes to labeling or action plans, including participation in docket processes.
- Some end users (farmers, processors, and supply chains) could experience indirect cost pressures if risk mitigation measures influence product pricing or availability.
- Industry data providers and agronomic data suppliers might incur costs to supply information needed for the required analyses.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing rigorous, transparent cross-agency analysis and coordination with the need for timely pesticide risk decisions. More extensive data-sharing and economic analysis can improve accuracy and acceptability, but may increase regulatory lag and impose higher compliance costs on growers and registrants.
The bill creates a formal, cross-agency framework intended to produce more transparent and economically informed pesticide regulation. While the coordination requirements can improve policy alignment and accountability, they also raise the costs of data collection, analysis, and interagency negotiation.
The duty to publish in the docket and to disclose the use (or non-use) of data introduces greater transparency but may slow certain decision processes. The waiver mechanism offers flexibility but could be used to narrow coordination in controversial cases, which could affect predictability for stakeholders.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.