|
Environmental Protection Agency files request for rehearing in chlorpyrifos case
Story Date: 9/26/2018
| |
Source: CROPLIFE AMERICA, 9/25/18
Yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested rehearing of a recent pesticide decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 9, the panel had ordered EPA to revoke all chlorpyrifos tolerances and cancel all chlorpyrifos registrations within 60 days. All registrations and tolerances will remain in effect while the court considers the government’s request. The request seeks rehearing either by the three-judge panel or by the entire 9th Circuit. CLA intends to file a friend of the court brief in support of the government’s request en banc. There is not yet any indication of the court’s timetable for review. If you have further questions, please contact Rachel Lattimore at rlattimore@croplifeamerica.org
Below find Corteva Agriscience’s™, CLA’s and USDA’s statements:
Corteva Agriscience’s™
“We believe the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) petition for rehearing of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in this case is justified. Chlorpyrifos is a critical pest management tool used by growers around the world to manage a large number of pests that can destroy crops, and regulatory bodies in 79 countries have reviewed the science, carefully evaluated the product and its significant benefits and continued to approve its use. We will continue to support the growers who need this important product.”
CropLife America
“CLA strongly supports the Department of Justice’s decision to request rehearing of a recent pesticide decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. We agree with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s statement that “…the decision appears to be based on a misunderstanding of both the available scientific information and the EPA’s pesticide regulatory system.” Congress authorized EPA to regulate pesticides based on scientific analysis, using procedures that provide opportunities for stakeholders such as USDA, EPA’s Scientific Advisory Panel, growers, other pesticide users and manufacturers to provided relevant information. The Court has ignored the standard and process that Congress authorized and directed EPA to implement.”
U.S. Department of Agriculture
“USDA disagrees with the ruling ordering EPA to revoke tolerances and cancel registrations for chlorpyrifos. The decision appears to be based on a misunderstanding of both the available scientific information and EPA’s pesticide regulatory system. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other groups have pointed out significant flaws in the draft chlorpyrifos assessments on which the court based its opinion, and USDA supports EPA’s conclusion that the available scientific evidence does not indicate the need for a total ban on the use of chlorpyrifos. EPA should be allowed to continue its ongoing science-based and expert-led evaluation of chlorpyrifos, which is part of EPA’s registration review program that covers all pesticides.
“The costs of an incorrect decision on chlorpyrifos are expected to be high and would cause serious impacts to American farmers working to feed, fuel, and clothe the United States and the world. This ruling, which would mean the sudden and total loss of chlorpyrifos, prevents farmers from using an effective and economical crop protection tool. Chlorpyrifos is used on well over 50 crops grown throughout the United States due to its efficacy and broad-spectrum activity across multiple pests. For some crops and target pests, chlorpyrifos is the only line of defense, with no viable alternatives.
“Chlorpyrifos helps farmers and consumers by improving production efficiency and contributing to public health and safety. The arbitrary, immediate, and total loss of this crop protection tool endangers agricultural industries and is expected to have wide economic impacts. Given the court’s incorrect assessment of the scientific evidence, we thank the Department of Justice for continuing to fight on behalf of American farmers and consumers in support of science-based regulatory oversight of crucial crop protection tools.”
|
|
|
|
