SAN ANTONIO (DTN) -- The crop protection industry said a growing backlog at the Environmental Protection Agency combined with political pressure from the Make America Healthy Again movement is creating new challenges for farmers' access to pesticides and other crop protection tools.

CropLife America President and CEO Alex Dunn said the industry's top concern is the increasing amount of time it takes for EPA to approve new pesticide products and label changes.

CropLife America is the trade association in Washington, D.C., that represents companies that manufacture and sell crop-protection tools.

"Our number one issue that we are spending most of our time on is timely, predictable pesticide registrations from the EPA," Dunn said in an interview with DTN during Commodity Classic. "That doesn't sound like the most headline-catching issue, but it's so important to growers."

Pesticide registrations at EPA used to take three years or so to complete. During the past decade, those approval times have doubled. "Some of those are now at EPA five, six years."

Companies that a decade ago would have gotten a pesticide approval for a new active ingredient first in the U.S. are now being registered more quickly in countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Canada or Australia, Dunn said. She noted farmers in those countries face the same weed and insect pressures as U.S. farmers, but now farmers in those other countries can often get approval for a crop-protection product much quicker.

"A product gets registered in those other countries and then their growers can fight a weed, a pest, a fungus or whatever the issue is, but American growers don't have access to that same tool."

Dunn added, "Now we're seeing approvals in a country like Brazil sometimes in 18 months where the very same product could be at EPA for three years or longer. So, there is a competitiveness issue."

The problem is not just a function of regulators approving new ingredients, but taking almost equally as long to approve the same chemical to apply on different crops, Dunn said.

Industry officials worry the delays could put U.S. farmers at a competitive disadvantage compared to producers in countries where regulators are approving products faster.

"We want our growers to have the latest and greatest tools that their competitors have," Dunn said.

REGULATORY BACKLOG AT EPA

CropLife said the registration delays stem largely from resource constraints at EPA and new regulatory requirements layered into the review process.

The pesticide program is authorized by Congress to receive about $166 million annually, Dunn said, but appropriations have typically been roughly $30 million lower.

"The pesticide program ... has been running about $30 million short," Dunn said.

At the same time, the agency has experienced staffing declines. Dunn noted the pesticide office once had about 900 employees in the mid-1990s but now operates with roughly 500.

Beyond staffing issues, new compliance requirements under the Endangered Species Act are also extending timelines.

Under a settlement agreement related to environmental lawsuits, EPA must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on pesticide registrations to assess potential impacts on endangered species.

"Going forward every new pesticide ... will have an Endangered Species Act consultation done," Dunn said. "That's adding about a year to the registration process."

CropLife is pushing for reforms that would streamline coordination between EPA, USDA and wildlife agencies. A provision in the House Agriculture Committee's farm bill proposal would create an interagency working group designed to improve that coordination.

EPA PUSHING REFORMS

EPA responded to DTN that one of the agency's top priorities is reducing the backlog of pesticide regulatory actions pending review. At the start of the Trump administration, EPA was facing more than 14,000 pesticide actions under review. The agency said that backlog has been scaled back to around 8,000.

Under The 2022 Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA-5), EPA is supposed to complete pesticide reviews within 17 months.

Under PRIA-5, EPA last year began an assessment of the agency's Office of Pesticide Programs and released a 100-page report last October on that evaluation from an outside consulting group. The report included 79 recommendations to improve both speed and data analysis for registering pesticides.

"EPA intends to respond to this report in the coming months as it considers how to best implement the recommendations," EPA's press office stated to DTN. "EPA remains committed to further process improvements and IT efforts to modernize key pesticide registration functions, reduce the pesticide registration backlog, provide transparency and implement gold-standard science."

Dunn noted one of the problems facing EPA is a funding shortfall. The Pesticide Program, by law, is authorized at $166 million, but congressional appropriators have typically been giving the program $30 million less annually. Companies also pay registration fees, but they don't make up that difference.

"You also have an aging workforce at EPA, just generally, and there's not a rush to enter public service, especially given some of the dynamics around government service right now," Dunn said. "I will say the Pesticide Office has been largely untouched by any of the DOGE effort that you hear about."

Still, staffing has declined over time to about 500 now.

EPA's budget documents during the past two years highlight the challenges trying to deal with more complex consultations tied to the Endangered Species Act. EPA proposed for FY 2026 to shift funds for pesticide licensing and increase staffing for the office -- one of the few areas that saw increases in EPA's budget.

FARM BILL AND SUPREME COURT BATTLE

A provision in the House version of the farm bill would clarify that EPA has final authority over health-related pesticide labeling under FIFRA as well and restrict state authority over pesticides. Also, the provision would prevent courts from imposing requirements or liability for any requirements beyond EPA's labeling or packaging requirements.

The issue was a major point of debate in the House Agriculture Committee markup last week with Democrats raising questions about preempting states' rights to regulate pesticide use. Republicans pushed back that EPA approval is a rigorous process and pesticide companies shouldn't face the risk of being required to have potentially 50 different labels around the country. A Democratic amendment to remove the provision failed.

Industry critics such as the Center for Food Safety are pressing Congress to pull the measure from the bill as well.

It should be noted that states also continue to place additional restrictions on pesticides that could be blocked under the provision. As DTN has reported, at least five states -- Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota and South Dakota -- added new restrictions to the application of three over-the-top dicamba herbicide products when EPA approved them last month. The restrictions are similar to those that states put in place before a federal court vacated EPA's 2020 restriction approval for over-the-top dicamba products. Read more at "Some States Impose Tighter Restrictions on OTT Dicamba Herbicides," https://www.dtnpf.com/….

SUPREME COURT BATTLE

The labeling issue also will be before the Supreme Court when the justices hear Monsanto Co. v Durnell, which is slated for arguments on April 27, meaning the ruling will come down sometime later this year. Monsanto, now Bayer, is appealing a ruling in Missouri state court that Monsanto should have provided cancer warning labels on its glyphosate herbicide, Roundup.

CropLife America, in its amicus brief in the court case, said the Missouri court's decision is wrong and companies cannot modify their labels without EPA's approval. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempts any state law, including Missouri's "duty-to-warn" law to protect public health.

"There is very strong law that indeed Congress did intend for EPA to have the final say on health-based claims and that EPA has the extensive research, expertise and scientific knowledge that when EPA has completed its study of a chemical," Dunn said. She added, "That's the final say on the federal level."

Without clarity, Dunn said, a chemical is going to be considered a carcinogen in one state, but not others, which creates that patchwork effect. "It can't be just in one versus not another, so this is a federal issue," she said.

MAHA MOVEMENT ADDS POLITICAL PRESSURE

Beyond regulatory issues, crop protection companies are facing heightened scrutiny from the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement associated with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

That issue became heightened when President Trump weighed in on the glyphosate issue on Feb. 18 with an executive order protecting the domestic production of glyphosate and elemental phosphorus. Trump's order stated that "any major restrictions in access to glyphosate-based herbicides would result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands."

The growing interest in food production practices is changing how the industry communicates about pesticides. Although HHS has limited direct authority over pesticides, Dunn said the movement has influenced public discussion around food production and chemical use.

"The MAHA movement has brought a lot of people to ask questions about their food and where it comes from and how it's grown," she said.

CropLife has attempted to engage with some MAHA advocates, focusing discussions on agricultural innovation such as precision agriculture and biological crop protection products.

"We like to say that we are very aligned with the Make America Healthy Again movement," Dunn said. "To make America healthy, you need abundant and affordable fruits, vegetables and protein."

While Dunn said there are some MAHA supporters who do not want to work with the industry, others have been open to looking at areas such as helping make precision agriculture more widely adopted. Dunn noted Kennedy has talked about precision agriculture or biological products.

"Almost all of the companies we represent have a full portfolio and they can offer a recipe for the grower that uses a biological tool and a conventional tool or a mix," Dunn said. "So that's where we've had the greatest traction with working with the MAHA team and I would say our door has remained really open to that group, and there are some members of the MAHA movement who are trying to move to a middle ground and try a bit of a problem-solving approach."

Still, Dunn noted modern production tools remain essential for maintaining yields and keeping food affordable.

"Without crop protection, we could lose up to 70% of crop production," she said.

Also see, "Trump Directs USDA to Prioritize Domestic Glyphosate, Phosphorus Production," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

Chris Clayton can be reached at Chris.Clayton@dtn.com

Follow him on social platform X @ChrisClaytonDTN

(c) Copyright 2026 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.