The EPA’s “plant regulator” definition has caused alarm in the relatively new plant biostimulant industry because some of its products would be subject to FIFRA’s high compliance costs. The term “plant biostimulant” was initially adopted to describe substances used in minute quantities that promote plant growth without being nutrients, soil improvers, or pesticides.

“Plant biostimulants are not intended to mitigate or kill pests and are not intended to alter the natural growth behavior of a plant in a manner which it would not normally behave under optimal growing conditions,” according to the Biostimulants Council, an industry trade group. Biostimulants are biochemical, microbial, or chemical substances that influence the intrinsic properties that modulate the growth of plants, in contrast to fertilizers that simply add nutrients.

Congress should clarify its intended scope of FIFRA regulation rather than allow a regulatory agency unbounded discretion to presume authority for concerns not specifically recognized by Congress.

To eliminate the threat of suffocating EPA regulation, Reps. Jimmy Panetta (D–CA) and Jim Baird (R–IN) introduced the Plant Biostimulant Act of 2022. It would exclude biostimulants from the definition of “plant regulator” and, accordingly, obviate the necessity for FIFRA compliance. Similar legislation may be introduced in the next Congress.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here