Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for cons…
This bill directs that the pesticide diquat be treated as generally causing unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to cancel the registration of all uses of diquat.
Upon enactment it prohibits the continued sale and use of any existing stocks of diquat, bars the EPA from reregistering diquat in the future, and requires the EPA to revoke any food tolerances or exemptions that allow diquat residues on or in food.
The bill invokes specific provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to accomplish these actions, with the stated effective date being the date of enactment.
Evaluated only on textual content and typical legislative dynamics, a direct, immediate federal ban on a single widely used pesticide with no transition provisions is politically and administratively contentious. It pits environmental/health objectives against well-organized agricultural and industry stakeholders, invites legal challenges to the abrupt statutory override of standard administrative procedures, and lacks built‑in compromise features that help controversial measures clear both chambers. Those factors make enactment unlikely without substantial revision, compromise, or offsetting accommodations.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, narrowly drafted substantive directive that leverages specific statutory authorities to remove diquat from the market immediately. It integrates well with existing law but omits explanatory findings, operational transitions, fiscal considerations, edge-case handling, and accountability mechanisms.
Timing and implementation: liberals accept removal but want support; centrists want phase-in and planning; conservatives object to immediate ban and lack of alternatives.
Timing and implementation: liberals accept removal but want support; centrists want phase-in and planning; conservatives object to immediate ban and lack of alternatives.
A mainstream liberal/left-leaning observer would likely view this bill positively as a decisive public-health and environmental protection step.
They would see congressional direction to cancel diquat registrations and revoke tolerances as a strong measure to reduce harmful pesticide exposure to farmworkers, consumers, and ecosystems.
They may note the absence of transitional supports but still favor removing a chemical they consider hazardous.
A centrist/moderate observer would acknowledge the public-health and environmental rationale for removing a harmful pesticide but would be concerned about the bill's immediate, across-the-board ban with no transition measures.
They would focus on practical implementation issues: timing, contingency plans for farmers, and evidence supporting the urgent need for a total ban.
They would be open to the policy if it included phased implementation and support to reduce economic disruption.
A mainstream conservative observer would likely oppose the bill as an overreach that imposes abrupt regulatory burdens on agriculture and removes agency discretion.
They would emphasize the economic impacts on farmers, the federal government overriding EPA’s standard regulatory process, and the lack of transitional measures or cost assessments.
They would prefer a slower, evidence-based approach that preserves options for producers and respects regulatory processes.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Evaluated only on textual content and typical legislative dynamics, a direct, immediate federal ban on a single widely used pesticide with no transition provisions is politically and administratively contentious. It pits environmental/health objectives against well-organized agricultural and industry stakeholders, invites legal challenges to the abrupt statutory override of standard administrative procedures, and lacks built‑in compromise features that help controversial measures clear both chambers. Those factors make enactment unlikely without substantial revision, compromise, or offsetting accommodations.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Timing and implementation: liberals accept removal but want support; centrists want phase-in and planning; conservatives object to immediat…
Evaluated only on textual content and typical legislative dynamics, a direct, immediate federal ban on a single widely used pesticide with…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, narrowly drafted substantive directive that leverages specific statutory authorities to remove diquat from the market immediately. It integrates well with…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.