House Passes Farm Bill; State Pesticide Preemption Not Included

***article updated on May 5, 2026, with comments from the National Pest Management Association***

WASHINGTON — On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (H.R. 7567) with a final vote of 224-200.

Not included were all three pesticide-related provisions from the bill text, including Section 10206, which reaffirms the authority of states to regulate pesticide use.

The National Pest Management Association (NPMA) and others have long championed state pesticide preemption, which they say prevents a patchwork of local ordinances that could create inconsistency for both consumers and service providers.

Megan Striegel, senior director of public policy, NPMA, expressed disappointment in the outcome. “Section 10206 as written provides greater regulatory clarity and consistency, which are critical for the professional pest management industry that operates across multiple jurisdictions,” Striegel told PCT.

Striegel noted that while pesticide issues drew attention, they were not the primary driver behind the House’s vote. “There has been renewed and growing interest among members of Congress in the resiliency and structure of the U.S. food system since 2024, and pesticides have increasingly become part of that broader conversation due to their essential role in food production."

For pest management professionals, there will be no immediate changes as a result of this vote, but Striegel cautioned of longer-term risks. “The long-term concern remains on the erosion of state pesticide preemption frameworks, which could open the door to increased local regulations,” she said.

NPMA made clear that preemption remains a top priority. “State pesticide preemption is not a dead issue. Ensuring regulatory certainty and consistency across jurisdictions is fundamental to our members’ ability to operate effectively and responsibly,” said Striegel, adding that the association will continue pursuing opportunities at both the federal and state levels.

That long-term commitment, Striegel noted, depends in large part on sustained engagement from the industry itself. “PMPs should remain actively engaged in NPMA’s advocacy efforts at both the federal and state levels. Continued education of policymakers, particularly at the state and local level, will be essential to reinforcing the importance of uniform, science-based regulation and the public health benefits our industry provides.”