Industry Insights
Key regulatory and policy developments shaping pesticide and pesticide-device compliance.
Featured Updates
The EPA announced a national innovation challenge with up to $30 million in total prize funding to help American farmers grow healthy food with fewer chemicals. The challenge supports practical, cost-effective alternatives to conventional chemical crop desiccation—the practice of spraying pesticides to dry crops before harvest. The initiative is part of a broader $1 billion+ investment plan announced jointly by HHS, USDA, and EPA to accelerate farm modernization and long-term food supply security.
Relevance to Compliance:
Manufacturers of desiccant pesticide products should anticipate shifting demand as the administration actively incentivizes alternatives. Companies investing in reduced-risk or biological product lines may find new funding and partnership opportunities. Registrants should monitor whether EPA ties future registration review priorities to the challenge's outcomes.
The EPA approved two new pesticides containing PFAS compounds—diflufenican and epyrifenacil—never before used in the United States, for application on some of the most widely grown U.S. crops. The approvals are part of a broader effort to roll back PFAS regulation, with the agency having previously approved a third fluorinated pesticide earlier in 2026. Environmental groups have strongly criticized the decision, noting that PFAS chemicals do not break down easily in the environment and pose long-term contamination risks.
Relevance to Compliance:
Product formulators and registrants should closely track the evolving PFAS regulatory landscape, which is now marked by significant tension between EPA approval decisions and growing environmental litigation. Companies should proactively assess their ingredient portfolios for fluorinated compounds and prepare for potential disclosure requirements or future retrospective reviews, even if current approvals signal regulatory permissiveness.
The EPA released its draft Fungicide Strategy identifying practical, science-based protections that fungicide users can adopt to safeguard more than 1,000 federally listed endangered and threatened species and their designated critical habitats from conventional agricultural fungicide use. The strategy follows the EPA's earlier Herbicide and Insecticide Strategies and represents the final major piece of its ESA-FIFRA alignment framework. The EPA expects to finalize the strategy in November 2026 and apply it through FIFRA registration review decisions. Public comments were accepted through spring 2026.
Relevance to Compliance:
Fungicide registrants should factor the finalized strategy—expected November 2026—into their registration review timelines and budget for enhanced ecological risk assessments. Applicators should anticipate new label language referencing species protection measures, including potential geographic use restrictions and buffer requirements. Companies with fungicide product lines should begin internal impact assessments now.
The EPA announced the availability of draft Pesticide Registration Notice (PRN) 2026-NEW, which will replace and supersede PRN 98-10. The draft guidance addresses notifications, non-notifications, and minor formulation amendments—streamlining how registrants make certain changes to their product registrations without submitting full amendments. The EPA opened a 45-day public comment period through February 19, 2026, describing the update as an efficiency improvement for both the agency and registrants.
Relevance to Compliance:
Registrants should review the finalized PRN once issued to determine which formulation and labeling changes can now be processed via the expedited notification or non-notification pathways versus full amendments. This may reduce time-to-market for minor product updates. Compliance teams should update internal change-management SOPs to align with the new categories.
PFAS in Pesticides: A Shifting and Uncertain Landscape
The EPA's June 2026 approval of two new PFAS-containing pesticides—diflufenican and epyrifenacil—represents a sharp reversal from the growing scrutiny PFAS faced earlier in the year. This creates a paradoxical regulatory environment: the agency is approving new fluorinated pesticide active ingredients while simultaneously facing NGO lawsuits challenging those very approvals. Registrants and formulators should not interpret current approval decisions as long-term stability—the political and legal trajectory of PFAS regulation remains highly volatile. Companies should proactively assess their product portfolios for fluorinated compounds and maintain documentation of any EPA-reviewed safety data, as retrospective reviews or future administration policy shifts could trigger sudden reevaluations.
ESA-FIFRA Alignment Nearing Completion: The Fungicide Strategy
With the release of the draft Fungicide Strategy in April 2026, the EPA has now addressed all three major pesticide classes—herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides—under its Endangered Species Act consultation framework. The strategy is expected to be finalized in November 2026, at which point it will be applied through FIFRA registration review decisions. Registrants with fungicide product lines should begin internal impact assessments immediately, as the finalized strategy will likely introduce new label language, geographic use restrictions, and buffer requirements. Companies should also prepare for extended registration review timelines as the EPA integrates species protection measures into its standard review processes.
Federal Push to Reduce Chemical Pesticide Reliance
The $30 million EPA innovation challenge and the broader $1 billion+ interagency investment plan signal a clear federal policy direction: actively incentivizing alternatives to conventional chemical pesticide use, particularly in pre-harvest desiccation. Combined with the presidential action on regenerative agriculture, this creates both a threat and an opportunity. Manufacturers of conventional desiccant products may face long-term demand erosion, while companies developing biological, reduced-risk, or precision-application alternatives may find new funding pathways and regulatory tailwinds. Strategic product portfolio planning should account for this shift in federal priorities.
State Liability Legislation and the Preemption Debate
The introduction of pesticide liability limitation bills in at least six states and at the federal level in 2026 represents a significant development in the ongoing FIFRA preemption debate. If enacted, these bills could shield manufacturers from failure-to-warn tort claims when products are registered and labeled in compliance with federal law. However, companies should not rely on legislative protection as a substitute for robust compliance—label accuracy, adequate warnings, and proactive risk communication remain the most effective defenses against litigation, regardless of the legal landscape.
All Insights
HHS, USDA, and EPA Announce Over $1 Billion in Farm Modernization Investments
HHS, USDA, and EPA jointly announced over $1 billion in investments and a comprehensive plan to accelerate progress on farm modernization and long-term food supply security. The plan includes EPA's $30 million grand prize challenge for cost-effective alternatives to pre-harvest desiccation use of pesticides, alongside USDA conservation and innovation funding. The administration also released a presidential action on advancing regenerative agriculture to strengthen soil health, lower input costs, and improve chemical efficiency.
Relevance to Compliance: Companies in the reduced-risk, biological, and alternative pesticide space should explore funding opportunities under this initiative. The administration's policy direction signals continued federal investment in reducing conventional chemical pesticide use—registrants should align product development pipelines accordingly.
2026 State Pesticide Liability Limitation Bills: A Growing Legislative Trend
At least six states and the federal government have introduced bills in 2026 to limit liability for pesticide manufacturers, according to the National Agricultural Law Center. These bills seek to shield manufacturers from failure-to-warn claims when their products are registered and labeled in compliance with FIFRA. The legislation touches on the long-standing tension between federal preemption under FIFRA—which prohibits states from adding label language different from federal requirements—and state tort law remedies.
Relevance to Compliance: Manufacturers and distributors should monitor these liability bills closely, as they could significantly reduce litigation exposure if enacted. However, companies should not assume blanket protection—compliance teams should continue ensuring label accuracy and adequate warning language as a first line of defense, regardless of legislative outcomes.
EPA Implements Registration Review Decisions: Pesticide Tolerance Updates
The EPA published a Federal Register final rule implementing registration review decisions for certain pesticides, including updated tolerances for hydrogen-based and other active ingredients. The rule became effective April 22, 2026, with objections and hearing requests due by June 22, 2026. The action reflects the EPA's ongoing 15-year registration review cycle mandated by FIFRA, which requires reevaluation of every registered pesticide.
Relevance to Compliance: Registrants and food crop producers should verify that their product tolerances align with the updated rule. Companies with affected active ingredients should review the final rule for any use pattern changes, tolerance revocations, or new data requirements that may impact their registrations.
EPA's Planned Reapproval of Dicamba: Ecological and Compliance Implications
The EPA is moving forward with dicamba reapproval despite environmental concerns. This decision carries significant implications for manufacturers, applicators, and agricultural retailers regarding label compliance, drift management protocols, and state-level restrictions.
Relevance to Compliance: Manufacturers must prepare for updated label requirements and enhanced stewardship protocols. Applicators should anticipate stricter training and certification mandates.
PFAS 'Forever Chemicals' in Pesticides: Regulatory Controversy and Health Concerns
Recent testing has identified PFAS contamination in several EPA-approved pesticide products, triggering calls for enhanced testing requirements and potential label updates. The EPA is facing pressure from environmental groups to implement mandatory PFAS screening for all pesticide applications.
Relevance to Compliance: Product formulators should assess their ingredient supply chains for PFAS presence. Expect potential new testing requirements and disclosure obligations in upcoming regulatory cycles.
EU Pesticide Regulatory Proposals Altering Ingredient Reviews
The European Union is proposing significant changes to its active ingredient review process, including accelerated timelines for hazard classification and stricter endocrine disruptor criteria. These changes may influence US regulatory approaches and create challenges for companies operating in both markets.
Relevance to Compliance: Companies with international portfolios should monitor EU developments closely as they often foreshadow US regulatory trends. Prepare for potential divergence in acceptable use patterns and data requirements.
Significant FIFRA Enforcement Trends & Penalties in 2025
Analysis of 2025 EPA enforcement actions reveals concentrated focus on unregistered pesticide sales, label violations, and online marketplace compliance. Average penalties increased 23% year-over-year, with particular attention to e-commerce platforms and third-party sellers.
Relevance to Compliance: Retailers and marketplaces should conduct immediate compliance audits of pesticide listings. Third-party seller vetting programs are becoming critical risk mitigation tools.
EPA Releases Updated Pesticide Mitigation Strategies and Mobile Tools
The EPA has launched a new mobile application and updated guidance documents to help applicators implement pesticide mitigation measures in the field. The tools provide real-time weather data integration, buffer zone calculators, and digital recordkeeping capabilities designed to improve compliance and reduce environmental impacts.
Relevance to Compliance: Applicators should familiarize themselves with these new tools as they may become referenced in future training and certification requirements.
Regulatory Forecasting for US Chemical Policy and Pesticide Regulation Trends
Leading regulatory law firm Bergeson & Campbell has published their annual forecast of pesticide regulatory trends, predicting increased scrutiny of inert ingredients, expanded state-level restrictions, and potential changes to conditional registration pathways. The analysis highlights growing divergence between federal and state approaches to pesticide regulation.
Relevance to Compliance: Companies should prepare for more complex multi-jurisdictional compliance strategies as state-federal regulatory divergence increases.
NGO Challenges to EPA PFAS Pesticide Approvals Intensify
Environmental Working Group (EWG) and other advocacy organizations have filed legal challenges against recent EPA pesticide approvals, citing inadequate review of PFAS contamination in formulated products. The lawsuits seek mandatory PFAS testing for all new pesticide applications and retrospective review of existing registrations.
Relevance to Compliance: Manufacturers should proactively test products for PFAS contamination and prepare for potential new disclosure requirements.
State-Level Neonicotinoid Restrictions Expand Beyond Agricultural Use
Multiple states have introduced legislation restricting neonicotinoid use in consumer products, landscape applications, and nursery operations—moving beyond the previous focus on agricultural crops. These restrictions create new compliance challenges for retailers and professional applicators operating across multiple jurisdictions.
Relevance to Compliance: Retailers should audit product portfolios for neonicotinoid-containing products and prepare for state-specific restrictions that may affect distribution channels.
Amazon Enhances Pesticide Listing Requirements Following EPA Consultation
Amazon has implemented stricter verification requirements for pesticide listings following collaboration with EPA enforcement teams. New requirements include mandatory EPA registration number verification, enhanced label image requirements, and automated compliance screening for restricted-use designations.
Relevance to Compliance: E-commerce sellers must ensure all listings include clear EPA registration information and comply with enhanced documentation requirements to avoid suppression.
International Harmonization Efforts for Pesticide Maximum Residue Levels
The Codex Alimentarius Commission has advanced proposals for harmonized maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pesticides in food commodities, potentially reducing trade barriers but requiring coordination between EPA, FDA, and international regulatory bodies. The proposals affect import/export requirements for treated agricultural products.
Relevance to Compliance: Importers and exporters should monitor Codex MRL developments as they may affect product registration strategies and international trade documentation.
EPA Expands Endangered Species Act Consultation for Pesticide Registrations
The EPA has announced significant expansion of Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation requirements for pesticide registrations and reregistrations, adding geographic use restrictions and mitigation measures for products affecting listed species habitats. This expansion may delay registration timelines and require enhanced ecological risk assessments.
Relevance to Compliance: Registrants should factor additional 6–12 months into registration timelines and budget for enhanced ecological data requirements.
Growing Scrutiny of Pesticide Product Claims in Online Advertising
The FTC has issued warning letters to multiple pesticide sellers for unsubstantiated environmental and efficacy claims in digital advertising. The enforcement action targets claims like 'eco-friendly,' 'non-toxic,' and '100% effective' that lack proper substantiation or contradict EPA-approved label language.
Relevance to Compliance: Marketing teams must ensure all digital advertising claims align precisely with EPA-approved label language and avoid unsubstantiated environmental benefit claims.
Stay Updated on Regulatory Change
Get curated insights and compliance updates delivered to your inbox.
Related Resources
Disclaimer: The insights provided on this page are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal or regulatory advice. All external links are provided for reference and PCCB does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of third-party content. For specific compliance guidance, please contact our team.