New USDA CROP Act Forces EPA to Prove Pesticide Safety Measures Are Economically Viable

The USDA Communication Regarding Oversight of Pesticides Act of 2025 (or the USDA CROP Act for short) is all about forcing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to coordinate—and justify—its actions before regulating pesticides. Essentially, this bill gives the Department of Agriculture (USDA) a much bigger seat at the table when the EPA is deciding how to manage risks associated with farm chemicals.

The New Cost of Safety: Economic Analysis Mandate

If the EPA Administrator decides a pesticide needs new safety rules—say, a change in how or when it can be applied—they can’t just roll it out. Under this bill, the EPA must now work with the Secretary of Agriculture to develop those changes. Crucially, the EPA must also conduct and publish a full economic analysis that spells out exactly what those new measures will cost growers, state agencies, and everyone else affected. For the farmer trying to manage their budget, this means any new regulation has to pass a cost-benefit check that is made public. This shifts the focus: safety measures now need to be proven economically viable before they are implemented.

Putting USDA Data First in Registration Reviews

Currently, the EPA reviews pesticides to make sure they are safe and effective. The CROP Act mandates that during these reviews, the EPA must coordinate with the USDA's Office of Pest Management Policy to get and consider specific data. This includes agronomic use data—the real-world information on how farmers actually use the chemicals—and details on the availability and economic viability of alternative pesticides. The bill also forces the EPA to be transparent about its homework: after making a decision, the EPA must publish a description explaining how it used the USDA's data, and if it chose not to use that information, it has to give clear reasons why. For busy people, this means more paperwork and public explanation from the EPA, making it easier to track how farm economics influence safety decisions.

Endangered Species Coordination: A Regulatory Traffic Jam

The bill also wades into the complex intersection of pesticides and wildlife protection. If the Secretaries of Interior or Commerce identify actions needed to protect endangered species from a registered pesticide (under the Endangered Species Act), the EPA must coordinate with both agencies and the USDA. The goal is to review those protective actions to make sure they align with how the EPA evaluates a pesticide's risks and benefits. While coordination sounds good, this requirement could potentially slow down or complicate environmental protections, as it forces the wildlife agencies to align their protective measures with the EPA's risk/benefit framework, which now includes a heavy emphasis on economic factors.

The Regulatory Side Door: The Waiver Provision

Here’s the catch that policy analysts are watching closely: the bill includes a provision allowing the coordination requirements to be completely waived or modified for a specific action. All it takes is an agreement between the EPA Administrator, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the pesticide registrant (the company that makes the chemical). If all three agree, they can skip the mandatory coordination and economic analysis—provided they publish the agreement in the public docket. For those concerned about environmental oversight, this is a significant loophole. It creates a regulatory side door where the main agencies and the regulated industry can collectively decide to bypass the transparency and coordination steps mandated by the rest of the bill, potentially reducing scrutiny on controversial chemical decisions.