Vermont's Welch Leads Push to Boost Organic Farming Support — While Proponents' Claim of 'Pesticide-Free' Faces Scrutiny
Organic farmers are restricted from using roughly 900 synthetic pesticides, but they are permitted to use natural substances and about 25 approved synthetic materials.
The 2026 reintroduction of the Opportunities in Organic Act by Senator Peter Welch and Representative Jimmy Panetta arrives at a time of significant change for American farm policy. The legislation aims to address long-standing financial and technical hurdles for organic farmers, positioning the sector as a key player in rural economic health and climate resilience. However, a closer look at the bill’s mechanics, the broader economic landscape, and the science of organic farming reveals a complex set of benefits and trade-offs for Vermont producers and consumers alike.
The New Framework for Organic Support
The proposed legislation moves away from the previous year’s unpredictable funding models. Instead of the often-lapsed Organic Certification Cost-Share Program, the act establishes a permanent “Opportunities in Organic Program.”
This new structure is built on three main pillars:
Modernized Cost-Share: Increases annual certification reimbursements from $750 to $1,500 per scope (such as crops or livestock) to help farmers manage the high cost of maintaining organic status.
Transition and Resilience Funds: Provides grants to non-governmental organizations to help farmers transitioning to organic and small-scale operations.
Technical Assistance: Funds mentorship and education for farmers on organic management techniques like natural pest control and soil fertility.
This shift follows a turbulent 2025, where administrative delays and government shutdowns left many farms without expected rebates, forcing some small-scale operations to delay certification.
Evaluating Claims: Pesticides and Production
While proponents often frame organic farming as “pesticide-free,” the reality is more nuanced. Organic farmers are restricted from using roughly 900 synthetic pesticides, but they are permitted to use natural substances and about 25 approved synthetic materials. Some of these, like copper sulfate, are highly toxic to aquatic life and can accumulate in the soil over time.
Additionally, while organic fields often show higher resilience during droughts, they generally produce lower yields than conventional farms under average conditions. Research indicates a persistent productivity gap, particularly in grains, which impacts the overall volume of food produced per acre.
Economic Realities and Grocery Prices
A central goal of the act is to make organic food more affordable. However, experts note that certification costs represent a very small portion of total production expenses. Organic farming typically requires more manual labor for weed control and more expensive feed for livestock.
Furthermore, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 significantly boosted subsidies for conventional commodity crops like corn and wheat. With conventional support reaching billions of dollars, the $100 million proposed for organic programs is a fraction of the total federal agricultural safety net. This funding gap means conventional food prices may remain lower due to heavy government subsidies that organic producers do not receive.
Environmental Impacts and Land Use
The environmental benefits of organic farming are often a primary selling point. Organic systems avoid fossil-fuel-based fertilizers, but they often rely on mechanical tillage for weed control, which can release stored carbon from the soil.
There is also the “land-use penalty” to consider. Because organic farms generally produce less food per acre, more land is required to produce the same amount of food as conventional systems. This can lead to the conversion of natural habitats into farmland, potentially impacting global biodiversity.
Diverse Perspectives on the Act
The bill is supported by over 50 organizations, including environmental and industry groups who see it as an essential investment in a healthier food system. These advocates are increasingly aligning their messaging with the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) initiative to highlight the role of organic food in reducing chemical exposure.
Conversely, critics from free-market think tanks argue that the bill represents unnecessary government intervention. They suggest that subsidies for both conventional and organic farming should be eliminated to allow market demand and innovation to drive the industry.
What Happens Next
The Opportunities in Organic Act is currently part of a broader debate regarding the future of federal farm policy. As the 2026 legislative session continues, lawmakers may choose to fold these provisions into a series of smaller, targeted “skinny” farm bills rather than one massive package.
Observers will be watching to see if the USDA can handle the increased workload for organic enforcement and whether the program’s funding survives the final budget negotiations this spring.