Chemicals found everywhere from manicured lawns and farms to the kitchen cupboard are facing a potential crackdown from Connecticut lawmakers, who are raising concerns about the impacts on animals and, in some cases, humans.
So far this year, more than a dozen pieces of legislation have been filed that deal with herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals, including those found in cleaning supplies and household products.
At a hearing last week, two bills in particular drew an abundance of testimony: House Bill 6916, which addresses a class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids, and House Bill 6915, which would ban the use of certain chemicals used in rat poison. Hundreds of letters from environmental groups, animal rights advocates, scientists and others offered support for the proposed bans.
“The legislature has been attempting to rein in the use of these poisons for some years,” said state Rep. Joe Gresko, D-Stratford, a former chair of the Environment Committee. “I’m hoping we get it right in 2025.”
This year’s proposals are the latest in a decades-long battle against chemical pollution. In its most recent report on the state of local birds, for example, the Connecticut Audubon Society warned that neonicotinoids are “the new DDT” — a reference to the chemical that was infamous for killing off Bald Eagles and other birds of prey before being banned in the 1970s.
Still, previous efforts to restrict or ban these chemicals have been sidelined over the objections of businesses that rely on their use.
Neonics
Neonicotinoids — often referred to simply as “neonics” — are a type of pesticide developed in the 1990s to combat infestations of insects on crops, golf courses, livestock and pets.
The chemicals have a nicotine-like effect on their targets, binding to insects’ nerve cells and causing overstimulation and death. But they’ve prompted concerns over their potential to spread to non-pests — such as bees and butterflies — as well as to birds and mammals, including humans.
That concern was on display at the State Capitol last Wednesday.
Victor DeMasi, a self-described “butterfly enthusiast” from Redding, attended a press conference on the two House bills dressed in a bee costume. DeMasi held a sign showing a decline in the number of butterflies he and his wife have counted in their hometown over the last three decades — since neonicotinoids were introduced on the market.
“Because of neonics, the pollen has neonicotinoids residue in them,” DeMasi said. “The bumblebees keep coming back to the same flower, it’s like they’re getting a drag on a cigarette.”
As part of a law passed in 2016 to protect pollinators, Connecticut required that neonicotinoids only be used under the supervision of someone certified by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. H.B. 6916 would go further, banning any use of the chemicals by anyone to treat golf courses, lawns, gardens or certain crops starting in 2028.
The proposal has sparked opposition from landscapers, farmers and golf course superintendents who describe neonicotinoids as safer that earlier types of commonly used insecticides.
“They were developed as a safer alternative to older, broad-spectrum insecticides, minimizing risks to humans and non-target organisms,” Keith Bishop, the president of Bishop’s Orchards in Guilford, said in testimony submitted to lawmakers. “Restricting their use on corn, wheat, and soybeans will force farmers to rely on older, potentially more harmful pesticides during the growing season.”
Rodenticides
The other group of chemicals coming under scrutiny for their ability to impact wildlife are known as “second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides,” or SGARs, to distinguish them from older rat killers such as warfarin, which some pests have grown resistant to.
Unlike those older products that were designed to kill quickly, SGARs were developed in the 1970s to kill rodents by building up in their tissue over time.
For that reason, however, they also pose a greater risk to animals that feed on rodents, such as hawks and owls, and they’re largely restricted to commercial pest control applications, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Even so, advocates argue that SGARs can still be purchased online and are responsible for the reported deaths of dozens of birds and other animals in Connecticut.
One influential proponent of the bill is Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, who has spoken about his experience discovering a Cooper’s Hawk on his lawn several years ago after it had been sickened by rat poison. “It was just a really striking example, in my own front yard, on how these rodenticides impact wildlife,” Duff said.
H.B. 6915 would further restrict the use of SGARs in Connecticut to public health activities, the eradication of invasive species, medical waste facilities, food warehouses and other agriculture facilities.
Opposition to the bill comes primarily from members of the pest control industry, who argue that they’re trained to use SGARs safely to prevent infestations of mice and rats.
Late last week, language restricting both neonicotinoids and SGARs was added to another environmental bill, Senate Bill 9. That legislation is proceeding concurrently with H.B. 6916 and H.B. 6915, which allows lawmakers to continue pushing for a ban on both chemicals should legislation stall in either chamber, according to Environment Committee Co-Chair Rick Lopes, D-New Britain.
PFAS
One bill that could potentially roll back existing chemical regulations is Senate Bill 887, which would exempt certain non-stick cookware from a sweeping ban on products containing PFAS that was signed into law by Gov. Ned Lamont last year.
PFAS refers to a class of chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, which have gained widespread attention in recent years due to their linkage to certain cancers, liver issues and other human health effects.
Due to their ubiquitous use in many products dating back decades and their ability to slowly build up in the body, they have also been dubbed “forever chemicals.”
When signing last year’s ban, however, Lamont raised concerns that the new law in Connecticut did not include a waiver provision for products that lack suitable, PFAS-free alternatives. In particular, the governor singled out cookware and outdoor apparel as two product types where the chemicals remain in widespread use.
Lopes said he filed S.B. 887 earlier this year in order to offer the cookware industry an opportunity to make the pitch that its newly-formulated products are safe and deserve an exemption to the PFAS ban.
In the weeks since he filed the bill, however, Lopes said lawmakers have heard “overwhelming” public opposition to creating new exemptions to the law, stalling the measure for the time being.
“At this point, the bill is just sitting there,” he said.
Other bills dealing with PFAS have been filed by lawmakers to address the chemicals’ appearance in homes (S.B. 53), defunct wells and landfills (S.B. 65), paper straws (H.B. 5914) waste-to-energy plants (S.B. 60).
1,4-dioxane
Connecticut lawmakers are weighing stricter limits on a chemical solvent, 1,4-dioxane, which is found in household cosmetics, detergents and shampoos, as part of Senate Bill 884.
The legislation would impose various restrictions on the chemical, ranging from 10 parts per million in cosmetics to 2 ppm in personal care products and household cleaners, beginning in 2026. Those limits would become more stringent the following year and could be further restricted beginning in 2030 if deemed necessary by state regulators.
Similar limits on 1,4-dioxane were put in place by New York lawmakers in 2022.
According to a public health statement released by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry — a division of the federal Department of Health and Human Services — 1,4-dioxane can cause harmful health effects ranging from short-term irritation of the eyes and nose to long-term liver and kidney problems.
The bill has drawn support from scientists at Yale University who are studying the effects of 1,4-dioxane in Connecticut drinking water supplies.
Opposition has come primarily from the chemical industry, which describes 1,4-dioxane as an unintended byproduct of manufacturing that only occurs in trace amounts, which they argue limits the need for additional regulations.