Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Proposes regulating or restricting pesticide use to reduce poisoning risks to Americans.
The problem
Pesticides may cause health problems and environmental damage. The bill addresses concerns about pesticide safety and public health protection.
The proposal
The bill likely restricts certain pesticides, increases safety rules, or changes how pesticides are approved and used in the United States.
The impact
Farmers, consumers, chemical companies, and the public may be affected through changed farming costs, food prices, pesticide availability, and health outcomes.
Stricter pesticide rules could reduce poisoning cases and illnesses in people exposed to these chemicals. This might lower healthcare costs from pesticide-related diseases. Communities near farms could see improved air and water quality.
Limiting dangerous pesticides protects soil, water, and wildlife. Fewer chemical runoffs mean cleaner rivers and stronger ecosystems. This supports long-term farming sustainability.
Clear rules create uniform pesticide safety across all states. Consumers gain better information about food safety. Companies know what rules to follow.
Farm workers face high pesticide exposure. Better protections could prevent serious injuries and illnesses. This improves workplace safety for vulnerable employees.
Farmers may need to buy safer but expensive alternatives or use new methods. Small farms could struggle with extra costs. This might reduce profits for agricultural businesses.
If farmers spend more on safer pesticides, they may raise food prices. Grocery bills could go up for families. Lower-income households would be hit hardest.
Restricting effective pesticides might reduce how much food farmers can produce. This could lead to food shortages or need for more imports. America's farming industry could become less competitive globally.
Pesticide manufacturers and distributors could lose business. Workers in these industries might face layoffs. Rural communities dependent on chemical production could suffer economically.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.