New Act Exempts Plant Biostimulants from Pesticide Regulation, Mandates Soil Health Study

If you’ve been paying attention to the rising cost of groceries or the push for more sustainable farming, this bill is worth a look. The Plant Biostimulant Act of 2025 is tackling a seriously nerdy, but important, regulatory problem: clarifying what agricultural inputs are considered pesticides and what aren’t. Essentially, this legislation carves out a new regulatory path for products that help plants grow better without being traditional fertilizers or pesticides, which could change how farmers manage their fields—and potentially what ends up in your food.

The Regulatory Remix: What’s a Biostimulant?

Currently, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) governs most agricultural chemicals. Many products that simply help a plant manage stress or improve nutrient uptake—known as plant biostimulants—have been lumped into the “plant regulator” category, which means they face the same complex, sometimes expensive, registration process as a true pesticide. This bill changes that. Section 2 updates the definition of a “plant regulator” to specifically exclude plant biostimulants, provided they are either naturally derived or chemically identical to a natural substance and perform the same function. A biostimulant is defined here as a substance applied to seeds, plants, or soil whose job is to support the plant’s natural processes, like improving nutrient efficiency or handling environmental stress, without relying on its own nutrient content. Think of it as a vitamin or energy drink for a plant, not a full meal (fertilizer) or a medicine (pesticide).

Who Benefits from the Red Tape Cutting?

This definitional change is huge for the agricultural input industry. By explicitly excluding biostimulants from the “plant regulator” definition, the bill removes a layer of federal regulatory oversight under FIFRA for these products. For manufacturers, this means a potentially faster, cheaper path to market. For a farmer trying to reduce fertilizer use, this means more options to boost crop yields or improve soil health without wading through unnecessary pesticide paperwork. For example, a small company developing a microbial product that helps corn extract more nitrogen from the air might have previously had to go through a lengthy EPA approval process; under this act, that barrier is likely removed, potentially leading to more innovation and competition in this sector.

However, this shift raises a question about oversight. While streamlining is good, removing these substances from the existing regulatory framework means we need to trust that the new system—or lack thereof—is sufficient to ensure product safety and label accuracy. The EPA is required to update its regulations within a tight 120-day window to reflect these new definitions, which is a significant administrative lift and could lead to a brief period of regulatory confusion.

Digging Deeper: The Soil Health Mandate

Beyond the regulatory cleanup, Section 3 mandates that the Secretary of Agriculture conduct a comprehensive study on how different types of plant biostimulants improve soil health. This isn't just academic; the study must focus on practical outcomes that matter to everyone: boosting organic matter, cutting down on nitrogen runoff into waterways, and helping the soil trap carbon (which is great for climate goals). The Secretary has two years, once funding is available, to complete this research and report the findings to Congress. This study provides a crucial feedback loop: while the bill is removing some regulatory oversight, it’s simultaneously requiring federal research to validate the real-world benefits and best practices for using these products. For farmers and consumers alike, this means that future decisions about agricultural sustainability will be backed by solid data on what actually makes the dirt healthier and our food system more resilient.