EPA set to reapprove dicamba, an herbicide previously banned by courts. (Washington Post)
Excerpt:
The Environmental Protection Agency is slated to reapprove an herbicide for genetically modified soybean and cotton crops, even while acknowledging continued concerns from some growers about spillover effects, according to two EPA staffers and a draft statement obtained by The Washington Post.
The EPA has approved dicamba twice before, and both times federal courts vacated those approvals, saying there was too much risk for the herbicide to drift and harm neighboring farms and gardens.
In the unreleased statement seen Tuesday by The Post, the EPA characterizes the new use guidelines as “the most protective dicamba registration in agency history” and notes the inclusion of “several measures” to head off “ecological risks.”
“For many growers, this is a vital tool that they will see as necessary to their crop production success,” the statement says, before anticipating that other growers and environmentalists may object based on the history of harm.
🌱
Follow Climate & environmentFollow
The two EPA staffers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the news media, said the agency would move to register dicamba next week.
The EPA did not respond to request for comment.
Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, whose organization has sued the EPA three times over dicamba, said there is virtually no way to stop dicamba drift.
“The fact that we’re here again after two failed attempts to fix this broken pesticide shows that Lee Zeldin and his army of industry lobbyists are utterly incapable of protecting the public,” he said, referring to the agency’s administrator.
In the proposed registration, released in July, the agency said it would address volatility concerns by requiring the inclusion of drift reduction agents, barring aerial applications and applications when the outdoor temperature is above 95 degrees Fahrenheit, and insisting on downwind buffers and provisions to address runoff risk.Ask The Post AIDive deeper
The statement seen by The Post did not say which of those measures would be in the final version, but one employee said it would be very similar to the proposal.















