In the ongoing debate over chlorpyrifos, much has been said about its potential risks, but far too little attention has been given to its necessity in American agriculture. California Attorney General Rob Bonta and a coalition of attorneys are calling for a complete ban on chlorpyrifos residue in food production, arguing that no level of exposure is safe. However, this approach ignores that chlorpyrifos has been used safely for decades when applied correctly, alternative pest control methods are not as effective, and banning it outright may jeopardize food security, increase costs for farmers and consumers, and potentially lead to worse environmental consequences.

Chlorpyrifos has been a crucial tool for farmers battling devastating pests. It protects crops such as wheat, citrus, apples, and soybeans from destructive insects that can contaminate and cause significant yield losses.

In a time when global food supply chains are already under pressure, removing one of the most effective insecticides without viable alternatives could threaten food production and raise costs, ultimately impacting consumers.

The science surrounding chlorpyrifos remains unsettled. Although studies have associated it with neurodevelopmental issues, the levels of exposure in typical use are significantly lower than the doses tested in laboratories. Proper application, in accordance with EPA guidelines and manufacturer recommendations, ensures that the pesticide does not pose a widespread health risk. The agricultural community is mandated to implement rigorous training programs and restrictions on use to minimize any potential harm.

And what happens if chlorpyrifos is banned?

If farmers are forced to abandon this proven pest control tool, they may turn to alternatives that are less effective, require higher application rates, or are more environmentally damaging. Some alternative pesticides have been shown to disrupt ecosystems and harm pollinators—key players in maintaining healthy crops.

A complete ban, as proposed by Bonta and other attorneys general, disregards the agricultural industry’s needs and ignores chlorpyrifos’ role in ensuring stable crop production.

Science should drive policy decisions, but that science must be comprehensive and balanced, not driven by fear.

At a time when food security is paramount, we cannot afford to eliminate essential agricultural tools without thoroughly considering the consequences. Instead of an all-or-nothing approach, the EPA should work with farmers, scientists, and regulators to find a balanced solution—one that protects both human health and our ability to produce the food that feeds the nation.