Soil contamination:  Environmental Deregulation on Agricultural Policies

        Soil pollution is one of the most significant environmental challenges of the twenty-first century. It refers to the presence of harmful substances, such as heavy metals, pesticides, industrial chemicals, and waste materials, in the soil at concentrations that negatively affect soil functions, ecosystems, and human health (FAO & UNEP, 2021). Soil contamination is primarily caused by human activities, including intensive agriculture, industrial production, mining, improper waste disposal, and urbanization. Although often less visible than air or water pollution, soil pollution poses serious long-term risks to environmental sustainability and food security.

        One of the main consequences of soil pollution is the reduction of agricultural productivity. Contaminants can alter soil properties, decrease soil fertility, and inhibit plant growth, resulting in lower crop yields and reduced food quality (FAO, 2021). In addition, polluted soils contribute to biodiversity loss by harming microorganisms, insects, plants, and other organisms that play essential roles in maintaining healthy ecosystems. The degradation of soil biodiversity weakens ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling and organic matter decomposition, which are crucial for sustainable agriculture (UNEP, 2021). Soil pollution also affects water quality because contaminants can leach into groundwater or be transported through runoff into rivers and lakes, threatening drinking water supplies and aquatic ecosystems (FAO & UNEP, 2021).

        Given these impacts, public policies play a critical role in preventing soil degradation and promoting sustainable land management. Effective regulations on waste disposal, industrial emissions, and agrochemical use can reduce the introduction of pollutants into soils. Furthermore, government initiatives that encourage sustainable agricultural practices, environmental monitoring, and soil restoration programs help protect soil resources for future generations. Therefore, strong public policies are essential not only for preserving soil health but also for ensuring food security, biodiversity conservation, and water quality in the long term.

        Agricultural soil protection in the United States has traditionally been supported through a combination of environmental regulations, federal oversight, and conservation programs aimed at reducing pollution and promoting sustainable land management. These policies have sought to balance agricultural productivity with the preservation of natural resources, recognizing that healthy soils are essential for food security, ecosystem stability, and long-term economic development (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2025) .

        However, the regulatory landscape changed significantly under the Trump administration. Since returning to office in 2025, President Donald Trump has promoted a broad deregulatory agenda based on the argument that excessive environmental regulations create unnecessary costs for farmers, businesses, and rural communities. A central component of this strategy was Executive Order 14192, issued on January 31, 2025, which directed federal agencies to eliminate at least ten existing regulations for every new regulation adopted (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2025a). This policy aimed to reduce regulatory burdens and encourage economic growth across multiple sectors, including agriculture.

        In line with this objective, federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced reforms designed to simplify environmental review procedures and reduce administrative requirements. The USDA revised its implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), consolidating several agency-specific regulations into a single framework and significantly reducing the overall volume of environmental review regulations (USDA, 2025). According to the agency, these changes were intended to accelerate project approvals and improve efficiency for agricultural and rural development initiatives.

        At the same time, the EPA announced one of the largest deregulatory initiatives in its history, reviewing dozens of environmental regulations as part of the administration’s broader effort to reduce federal oversight and expand state and private-sector decision-making (EPA, 2025b) . Supporters viewed these reforms as necessary to strengthen agricultural competitiveness, while critics argued that they could weaken environmental safeguards and reduce protections for natural resources, including agricultural soils (EPA, 2025b) .

        During the Trump administration, environmental policy increasingly emphasized deregulation as a strategy to promote economic growth, agricultural productivity, and administrative efficiency. In 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) introduced a deregulatory agenda aimed at reducing what it considered burdensome environmental requirements for farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. According to Secretary Brooke Rollins, these reforms were intended to accelerate project implementation, encourage innovation, and improve the competitiveness of American agriculture. However, many of these changes also affected environmental oversight mechanisms that contribute to the protection of agricultural land and soil resources.

        One of the most significant reforms involved changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process. The USDA rescinded seven agency-specific regulations and replaced them with a single department-wide framework, reducing NEPA-related regulations by approximately 66 percent. The administration argued that streamlining environmental reviews would reduce administrative costs and allow agricultural and rural development projects to move forward more quickly. Nevertheless, NEPA reviews have traditionally served as an important tool for assessing potential environmental impacts before projects are approved.

        The administration also pursued the streamlining of biotechnology regulations by creating exemptions for certain plants and microorganisms already regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to the USDA, this measure would eliminate duplicative requirements, facilitate access to new agricultural technologies, and reduce compliance costs for producers.

        Additional reforms affected land and natural resource management, including the simplification of grazing regulations on federal lands, the reduction of restrictions on forestry activities, and support for energy and critical mineral development projects. Together, these initiatives reflected a broader regulatory philosophy that prioritized efficiency and production while reducing federal oversight of activities that may influence land use and environmental management.

        In this regard, the reduction in environmental assessments and the streamlining of reviews have a direct impact on soil protection, which is a double-edged sword that prioritises operational speed over the thoroughness of preventive monitoring. It is therefore very important to try to explain their implications in concrete terms.

        Firstly, these changes lead to a significant reduction in early detection and a scaling back of controls. Detailed environmental reviews, such as those required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the United States, are designed to ensure that agencies consider environmental impacts before taking major federal action. When these regulations are deemed ‘unduly burdensome’ and scaled back (such as the USDA’s 66 per cent reduction in NEPA regulations), the primary aim is to allow projects to proceed ‘more quickly’.

        However, this streamlining may compromise the ability to detect impacts before they occur, as resources are concentrated solely on projects where reviews are deemed ‘truly necessary’, potentially overlooking preventive assessments across a wider range of activities.

        Secondly, it increases the risk of erosion, degradation and pollution. This is because, as successful global policies emphasise, protection against erosion and pollution requires constant monitoring and accurate data. With regard to erosion and degradation, their significance is illustrated by the way in which some countries, such as China, have implemented strict systems with concrete measures and policies to protect arable land and prevent its degradation. In this respect, the simplification of these control mechanisms reduces the barriers against practices that damage the most fertile soils rich in organic matter.

        With regard to pollution, identifying contamination caused by fertilisers and pesticides relies on “rapid soil testing technologies” and “multidimensional monitoring networks”. The European Union, for example, emphasises the need for accurate pollution data to ensure the remediation of affected sites. If checks are simplified to avoid what some sectors refer to as an ‘administrative burden’, there is a risk of losing the transparency and accuracy of the data needed to identify these pollutants.

        Thirdly, the balance between speed and the monitoring of cumulative impacts is undermined. There is a clear tension between administrative efficiency and environmental safety. With regard to the rapid approval of projects, the ‘deregulation’ approach seeks to eliminate ‘bureaucracy’ in order to foster innovation and reduce costs for producers. This ensures that infrastructure and energy projects are not “stalled or delayed for years”. However, strategies such as those adopted by the European Union or Australia rely on “robust monitoring frameworks” and “standardised protocols” to track soil health over the long term. Simplifying these processes may weaken the “science-policy interface”, making it difficult for decision-makers to access actionable scientific information on how multiple small-scale projects cumulatively affect soil integrity over time.

        Consequently, whilst regulatory simplification aims to ‘unleash the agricultural engine’ and accelerate development, this may come at the expense of the monitoring mechanisms that prevent irreversible degradation and the loss of ‘soil security’.

        During the administration of Donald Trump, the shift toward deregulation in agricultural soil protection policies reflected a broader policy orientation that sparked a debate between economic and environmental perspectives. From an economic standpoint, these reforms were framed as necessary to ease regulatory pressure on farmers and rural industries. Actions such as simplifying the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review procedures and limiting federal involvement through agencies like the United States Department of Agriculture were intended to speed up decision-making processes, reduce compliance expenses, and encourage technological advancement. Within this framework, deregulation was associated with increased efficiency and the promotion of agricultural competitiveness.

        Nevertheless, the environmental perspective raises important concerns regarding the implications of these changes for soil protection. The reduction in environmental evaluations constrains the ability to anticipate and mitigate potential risks, weakening preventive mechanisms that have traditionally supported environmental governance. As highlighted in the analysis, consistent monitoring and reliable data collection are essential for identifying contamination linked to fertilizers, pesticides, and other agricultural inputs. When these processes are reduced or simplified, it becomes more difficult to detect soil degradation, assess erosion patterns, and understand the combined effects of multiple activities over time.

        Moreover, although these reforms facilitate faster project execution, they may disrupt the equilibrium between economic expansion and environmental preservation. Prioritizing rapid implementation and lower costs can diminish the effectiveness of monitoring systems designed to protect soil quality and biodiversity. Taken together, these dynamics illustrate an underlying tension between immediate economic objectives and the need for long-term environmental sustainability.

        In conclusion, while deregulation policies are intended to promote growth and reduce administrative complexity, they also reveal the potential consequences of weakening protective frameworks. Ensuring a balance between economic priorities and environmental safeguards remains essential for sustaining agricultural productivity and preserving soil resources over time.

References:

United States Department of Agriculture. (2026). A deregulatory agenda for American agriculture & consumers. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-de-reg-agenda.pdf

Costantini, E. A. C., & McBratney, A. B. (2025). Recent developments in global soil health protection policies. Soil Security, 19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667006225000164 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025a). Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/executive-order-14192-unleashing-prosperity-through-regulation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025b, March 12). EPA launches biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-launches-biggest-deregulatory-action-us-history

United States Department of Agriculture. (2025, June 30). Secretary Rollins rolls back overly burdensome environmental regulations to unleash American innovat.U.S. Department of Agriculture.https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/06/30/secretary-rollins-rolls-back-overly-burdensome-environmental-regulations-unleash-american-innovation