Apart from the EPA’s decision to allow fracking in US national parks, the long-simmering dispute over the rules for using the herbicide ingredient dicamba on cotton and soybeans is coming to a head again. Just before the November national election, the agency approved or, alternatively, renewed the licenses of three dicamba formulations belonging to BASF, Bayer and Syngenta for five years up to 2025.

Although BASF and Bayer applauded the EPA’s move as a science-based approach to give farmers access to the technology, some farmers and their organizations, unhappy with the strings attached, are chafing at the new restrictions, which have changed several times over the course of a year.

The herbicide launched by Monsanto in 1962 has been eyed critically by farmers and environmental activists because of its tendency to drift and damage crops in neighboring fields and repeatedly has been the subject of litigation as well as being mentioned as a possible carcinogen.

Since the Trump administration took over the EPA  in January 2017, it has supported farmers and producers in their efforts to keep restrictions on controversial agrochemical at bay, just as environmental campaigners have pulled in the other direction.

In June 2020, the California-based US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the EPA to vacate an earlier decision easing the rules for using dicamba and mandated that companies halt sales of products containing the herbicide ingredient. The agency, it claimed, “substantially understated or failed to consider the social and economic costs” of allowing continued use of the herbicides.

Citing potential difficulty for clearing weeds to protect crops already planted, Trump-appointed agency head Andrew Wheeler announced that the EPA and agrochemical producers would only comply with part of the order.

The same appeals court is now being called on to deal with the fallout from the election eve dicamba registration extension in addition to continued hearings of litigation brought by environmentalists seeking to block the EPA’s registration for glyphosate under Wheeler.

Also in the 9^th district, the American Soybean Association and the Plains Cotton Grower grouping are challenging the court’s rules on expansion of buffer zones to protect endangered species and downwind crops from dicamba spraying. This would severely cut into their crop acreage, they contend. Simultaneously,, a group of states is challenging the application exclusion zones.

The US Center for Food Safety, Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network North America have now joined the National Family Farm Coalition – whose pushback against extensive dicamba drive use led to last summer’s decision to vacate the first Trump era changes – is seeking to vacate the new five-year usage window for the relevant herbicides.

The plaintiffs contend the EPA did not provide “substantial evidence” under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that use of the herbicides would not cause unreasonable adverse effects or, under the Endangered Species Act, consult with federal wildlife agencies about impacts on endangered species.

Another criticism is that the agency did not provide for public for comment on its decision to eliminate the long-standing use of a FIFRA provision allowing state pesticide agencies to restrict use of certain chemicals within state borders, including the implementation of cutoff dates for spraying.

Author: Dede Williams, Freelance Journalist