Several months ago, farmers and others in agricultural circles were bracing for an expected federal ban on use of chlorpyrifos — a widely used insecticide — on all food crops.

But that was before Donald Trump was ushered into the White House as our 45th president.

His administration has already suspended some 30 environmental regulations issued under President Barack Obama. More dismantling is expected now that Trump’s pick, Scott Pruitt, a longtime legal opponent of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is leading the agency.

In Hawaii, where the spraying of restricted-use pesticides, including chlorpyrifos, is a contentious and emotionally charged issue, state Rep. Richard Creagan has pushed the protection effort further by introducing House Bill 253, which would ban all chlorpyrifos use in the islands. Last week, the measure was referred to the House Consumer Protection and Commerce Committee, where it deserves a hearing.

A spray staple in the U.S. for a half-century, in recent decades federal regulators have ratcheted down chlorpyrifos uses amid growing evidence tied to exposure-related health concerns, including a link to disruptions in the brain development of babies and young children. Pesticide residue has been found on food produce at levels as high as 140 times the EPA’s safety limit, and can pose an airborne risk to communities living near sprayed agricultural fields. The EPA is slated to issue a final decision on the proposed food-products ban by March 31.

But as Creagan recently pointed out, that deadline now seems shaky. And that’s reason enough to keep debate alive at the state Capitol between the bill’s supporters, who assert the pesticide is a highly toxic threat to our communities, and opponents, who see it as an overreach.

In written testimony, the state Department of Agriculture said since the EPA, which has regulation expertise, is not poised to make an “across-the-board ban,” then neither should the state. The state licenses 25 pesticide products containing chlorpyrifos, 13 of which have food uses. The remaining dozen are used in tree plantations, nurseries, golf courses, and in ant and roach baits sold in child-resistant packaging.

Some farm-focused groups argue that any state ban in advance of federal action would be costly. Local farmers would be forced to pour time and money into other pest-control options, giving mainland farmers still using chlorpyrifos an economic advantage.

Opponents have compelling points as do supporters, many of whom have pressed hard in recent years for more safety precautions tied to agribusiness pesticide use.

In December, the state announced new initiatives to improve pesticide-related transparency with tighter worker protection standards, expanded monitoring and data collection, and notification of nearby residents before an area is sprayed.

The initiatives were spurred by a report commissioned by the state and Kauai County: While it found no substantial on-island evidence of pesticide-caused harm to plants, animals or humans, it did find some known health conditions associated with pesticide exposures including developmental delay, ADHD, renal disease, diabetes and obesity.

In testimony supporting HB 253, report member Dr. April Sasaki, a pediatrician, noted that on the mainland “well-respected studies … have shown an alarming straight-line correlation between decreases in IQ and increases in other behavioral issues in children” whose mothers lived near chlorpyrifos spray sites during pregnancy.

Supporters also point to a lawsuit the EPA filed last year against Syngenta Seeds, LLC, contending it had failed to adequately protect workers exposed to chlorpyrifos in a Kauai cornfield. In addition, environmental groups are red-flagging EPA concerns that the chemical can contaminate drinking water sources at unsafe levels in areas where it’s heavily used.

Over the next few months, state lawmakers should take a hard look at chlorpyrifos and the scope of the proposed state and federal bans. Clearly, pesticides are a hot-button topic in Hawaii, especially in residential communities near crop fields. And if, due to the political shifts in Washington, D.C., federal decisions intended to effect public protections are stalled or derailed, the state must be well versed and ready to step in with its own thoughtful legislation.