Pesticide use is a critical consideration for cannabis cultivators, not only for crop protection but also because governments closely monitor the environmental impacts of the marijuana industry. Historically, marijuana could not be cultivated using federally approved pesticides due to its status as a Schedule I drug. Although the Department of Justice has rescheduled marijuana that is lawful under state or federal law for medical purposes, the impact and breadth of such rescheduling on pesticide use is still unclear.
For most agricultural crops, growers rely on EPA-approved pesticide labels for crop-specific instructions on how pesticides may be used. For cannabis, however, no such labeling exists. As a result, cultivators seeking to understand the appropriate use of pesticides in states where marijuana can be legally grown must navigate an unclear and often inconsistent set of requirements governing how pesticides may be selected and applied.
Although many states, such as California, maintain an approved list of pesticide products for their licensed cannabis cultivators, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not scientifically reviewed these products for use on cannabis nor their acceptable applications (see “State-Level Approaches to Pesticide Use” below).
Pesticide use is a critical consideration for cannabis cultivators, not only for crop protection but also because governments closely monitor the environmental impacts of the marijuana industry. Historically, marijuana could not be cultivated using federally approved pesticides due to its status as a Schedule I drug. Although the Department of Justice has rescheduled marijuana that is lawful under state or federal law for medical purposes, the impact and breadth of such rescheduling on pesticide use is still unclear.
For most agricultural crops, growers rely on EPA-approved pesticide labels for crop-specific instructions on how pesticides may be used. For cannabis, however, no such labeling exists. As a result, cultivators seeking to understand the appropriate use of pesticides in states where marijuana can be legally grown must navigate an unclear and often inconsistent set of requirements governing how pesticides may be selected and applied.
Although many states, such as California, maintain an approved list of pesticide products for their licensed cannabis cultivators, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not scientifically reviewed these products for use on cannabis nor their acceptable applications (see “State-Level Approaches to Pesticide Use” below).
FIFRA
Broadly, the federal EPA regulates pesticides through the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Under FIFRA and its corresponding regulations, a pesticide intended for use in cultivation cannot be distributed and sold until it is approved and registered with the EPA. As part of the registration process, a pesticide must include labeling that identifies approved crops or use sites and sets forth detailed directions for use, including application rates, methods, timing, and safety requirements. Under federal law, it is unlawful to utilize registered pesticides in a manner inconsistent with their labeling.
For many agricultural crops, the EPA-approved label serves as the primary source of instructions, specifying how, when, and in what amounts a pesticide may be applied, while states impose additional requirements such as licensing and recordkeeping.
Federal law provides a limited exception for certain “minimum risk” pesticides. Pesticides that contain only certain ingredients that are “demonstrably safe for its intended use” are considered to be minimum risk, and the EPA’s approval is not required for their use as long as they otherwise meet applicable labeling criteria. Minimum risk pesticides include, for example, products containing common household ingredients such as essential oils, vinegar, or certain plant-based substances.
The labeling standards for minimum risk pesticides are relaxed. Instead of instructing growers that a pesticide is limited to use on certain crops or in certain settings, the instructions may be broad enough to not exclude use on any crop, including marijuana.
Pesticides for Hemp
In 2018, the Farm Bill carved out “hemp” from the definition of “marijuana” in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). As a result, any cannabis plant containing less than 0.3% of delta-9 THC (soon to be total THC per the 2025 Continuing Appropriations Act) became legal to grow, sell, and distribute throughout the nation, unless further regulated by state law.
Starting in December 2019, the EPA began recognizing pesticides that could be legally distributed and, consequently, used for growing hemp. Many of these early approvals were limited to lower-risk pesticides that did not require the EPA to set limits on how much pesticide residue could remain on the crop.
In 2023, however, the EPA took a further step by establishing its first residue limit for a pesticide used on hemp grown for use in food, permitting the use of a conventional pesticide and setting a maximum allowable level of residue for hemp-derived ingredients such as hemp seed oil. As of early 2026, the EPA had approved around 100 pesticides for use in hemp. The approval of pesticides for hemp, however, did not resolve the lack of federal guidance for pesticides used when cultivating marijuana, which remained a Schedule I controlled substance until spring 2026.
On April 23, 2026, the U.S. Acting Attorney General announced a limited rescheduling of marijuana. While hemp remained excluded from the definition of marijuana, marijuana that is “included in an FDA-approved drug product or are subject to a state-issued license to manufacture, distribute, and/or dispense marijuana or products containing marijuana for medical purposes” was moved from Schedule I to Schedule III. The impact rescheduling will have on the legality of pesticide use for marijuana cultivation is not entirely clear. One answer may lie in Special Local Need registration.
Special Local Need
Special Local Needs (SLN), or 24(c), registration under FIFRA is a method in which a state may register and obtain authorization to distribute and use a pesticide to combat the unique needs of that state or locality, such as unique pests or crops. Although SLN registrations are initiated at the state level, the EPA requires that SLN pesticides meet the approval requirements of FIFRA, including that the pesticide won’t have an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment or risk to human health.
In 2015, the Colorado Department of Agriculture inquired into the use of SLN registration for pesticide use on the cultivation of marijuana. In response, the EPA explained that Colorado could potentially obtain SLN registrations for certain marijuana-related uses by demonstrating that an already registered pesticide has a sufficiently similar use pattern. The EPA indicated that such similarity is most likely where a pesticide is approved for:
- use on food crops, such that a complete toxicity database exists to evaluate acute, short-term, intermediate, and chronic exposure;
- use on tobacco, allowing for analysis of pyrolysis byproducts when plant material is burned;
- the same types of application methods, to assess exposure risks to workers who mix, load, and apply the pesticide;
- crops with agronomic characteristics similar to cannabis, to ensure appropriate protections for workers reentering treated areas; and
- similar cultivation environments, such as greenhouses or outdoor sites, to account for environmental fate, worker protection requirements (including personal protective equipment), and potential impacts on non-target organisms and water resources.
Two years later, however, the EPA effectively rolled back such determination when it disapproved an application for SLN registration of marijuana from California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation, on the grounds that it did “not believe that Congress intended the process under section 24(c) of FIFRA to be used for the purpose of facilitating activities that are generally in violation of federal law” including cultivation of Schedule I controlled substances.
Now that state-licensed medical marijuana is Schedule III with acknowledged medical uses, the EPA may revisit whether SLN registration could serve as a pathway for pesticide authorization in the interim before pursuing the more comprehensive process required for full federal registration. Until that time, however, state regulations will continue to govern pesticide use in marijuana.
State-Level Approaches to Pesticide Use
In practice, many states maintain lists of pesticides that may be used during marijuana cultivation, which often include minimum risk products as well as certain conventional pesticides approved for other crops under federal law.
Ohio, for example, requires that cultivators use pesticides from an approved list. Ohio approves pesticides that are: (1) already registered with the Ohio Department of Agriculture; and (2) registered with the EPA or exempt from registration under the minimum risk exception. Thus, even minimum-risk pesticides must be approved by the Ohio Division of Cannabis Control before they may be used to cultivate medical or adult-use marijuana.
Many states impose pesticide residue testing requirements throughout cultivation and the processing cycle, but it is ultimately up to the cultivator to determine how to apply pesticides in a manner that will meet those limits. California, for instance, requires testing for a broad panel of pesticide residues at the distribution stage and imposes strict action limits for each allowed pesticide under its regulations. Failure to meet those limits can result in batch failure or product recalls. Similarly, Washington only requires testing of certain pesticides in the final product.
Another common method of state regulation involves restricting how pesticides may be applied. For example, Colorado requires that certain pesticides, including restricted-use pesticides, be applied only by properly licensed applicators under state pesticide laws. Other states limit pesticide use to particular stages of cultivation, such as Ohio, which prohibits the application of pesticides after a specified point in the flowering stage. Still other states restrict application methods, and some require the use of only state-approved products. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in regulatory penalties, even where the final product may otherwise be safe for human consumption.
What This Means for Operators
Unless and until the EPA approves a pesticide for the cultivation of Schedule III medical marijuana, state-licensed marijuana cultivators operating across multiple jurisdictions cannot rely on a one-size-fits-all approach. Even after a pesticide is federally approved for marijuana cultivation, that approval will likely not extend to the cultivation of adult-use marijuana while it remains under Schedule I.
Thus, cultivators must continue to tailor their practices to each state’s specific requirements, including approved pesticide lists, application restrictions, and testing standards. To ensure compliance, cultivators should adopt state-specific cultivation protocols, train staff on differing application rules, and maintain separate compliance procedures across operations.
Operators should also be mindful that, depending on how and when a state regulates and tests marijuana products, disputes between cultivators and processors may arise based on test results. When a consumer product fails due to pesticide contamination, cultivators and processors may “point the finger” at each other for such contamination.
Accordingly, even if testing is required only at later stages, each entity in the supply chain should maintain thorough and accurate records of pesticide use, application timing, and testing results, sometimes beyond minimum state requirements, to show compliance with state law and protect against liability for practices by those further down the supply chain. One way to do that is to address pesticide compliance in contracts among cultivators, processors, and manufacturers, including allocating responsibility for failed testing, setting internal residue standards, and requiring documentation of pesticide use.
In a regulatory environment where federal guidance is absent and state standards vary, proactive compliance measures are critical to reducing product loss, enforcement risk, and commercial disputes.
