A new bill in the Vermont House would ban the use of certain insecticides by the state’s agricultural sector. Bill H.706 bans the use of neonicotinoid insecticides on many crops, such as corn, soy and grain, and on all crops during bloom. The bill follows a recent move by New York state to ban the use of neonics out of the fear it would hurt pollinators. This claim lacks evidence. What does not lack evidence is a ban on neonics would increase consumer prices and hurt farmers, especially in the dairy industry.

“The European Commission and the provinces of Quebec and Ontario have implemented significant prohibitions on the use of neonicotinoids,” the bill states in its current version. There’s no argument on the fact these jurisdictions have indeed restricted the use of neonics, yet it leaves out significant context. The dairy lobby in Canada has made deals with the government that provide them with handsome subsidies that offset their rising costs as a result of the ban. Meanwhile, European farmers have, in fact, been protesting the overbearing regulation on pesticides for weeks. The European Commission only recently scrapped a plan that would have halved pesticide use in the coming years due to farmer protests. In 2020, France temporarily suspended the EU ban on neonics, because sugar beet farmers were severely affected by insect attacks that decimated their crops.

The reason why a ban on neonics would affect dairy farmers the most is because it would leave silage corn exposed to insects, especially seedcorn maggots and wireworms, which are increasing in prevalence in an environment in which manure is used as a fertilizer. This way of creating soil fertility has made Vermont farming more sustainable, but it has also made neonics essential to maintain affordable food production free from insects.

Replacing neonics is hard to do: For every pound of neonicotinoid, it would now require five pounds of older pesticides that insects have sometimes built resistance to. One neonic alternative, diamide, would be three times as expensive, which would impoverish farmers and increase food prices for consumers. In fact, lawmakers have not commissioned an impact assessment on what this ban would really mean for consumers and growers. What they do instead is rely on a Cornell report from 2020 made for New York state, which states itself that it was not designed to contain any policy prescriptions. We cannot afford to answer the question “what will this do?” with “we don’t know.”

Eighty percent of Vermont’s dairy sector is conventional, and 85% of the state’s milk gets shipped out of state. The sector is hardly in a position to support additional costs: between 2017 and 2022, 37% of dairy farmers shut their businesses down already. The July floods caused damages for crop and livestock farmers of almost $45 million. Consumers are also affected by these challenges for farmers. Consumers are currently experiencing rising food prices and cannot afford another drain on their purchasing power.

Scientists agree that mites and climate change affect bee populations, but it is important to note there is no “Beepocalypse” or massive bee decline as some campaigners would describe it. According to the independent Statistisches Bundesamt of Germany, after analyzing FAO data, it has been determined beekeeping and apiculture have experienced substantial growth on a global scale in the past few decades. The report shows a remarkable 47% rise in the number of bee hives since 1990, reaching a new record high globally.

As consumers, we want and deserve a sustainable food system. But protesting farmers in Europe also sends us another message: sustainability is also social. If we discount farmers in our thinking about the farm system, we’ll end up with a poorer environment as consumers also.

Even in New York, farmers will be able to use neonics continuously until 2029. The least lawmakers in the House and Senate should do is take a step back and follow the science in the interest of all.

This article was first published by Times-Argus.