In a significant legal challenge to the agricultural industry, a coalition of environmental groups led by the Center for Food Safety has taken the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to court over its decision to register two widely used herbicides. The lawsuit, originally filed in June 2023, targets the EPA’s approval of Enlist One and Enlist Duo, manufactured by Corteva Agriscience LLC, for use through January 2029. The plaintiffs argue that the EPA’s decision violates the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the primary pesticide regulation statute in the United States.
Enlist One and Enlist Duo are herbicide products designed to control broadleaf weeds, particularly those that have developed resistance to other herbicides like glyphosate. Enlist Duo combines 2,4-D (a synthetic auxin herbicide) with glyphosate, while Enlist One contains only 2,4-D. Both products are used in conjunction with Enlist-resistant corn, soybean, and cotton crops, approved for use in 34 states. The EPA has identified these products as crucial tools for managing herbicide-resistant weeds, such as glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth.
The EPA’s registration of these herbicides in 2022 was based on a balance of their benefits and environmental risks. The agency acknowledged the products’ effectiveness against resistant weeds but also noted potential harm to pollinators, pollinator host plants like milkweed, and other wildlife. To mitigate these risks, the EPA included additional application requirements, such as a 30-foot spray drift buffer and a “pick list” of mitigation measures to limit pesticide exposure to wildlife.
However, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit contend that the EPA’s registration decision did not fully comply with FIFRA’s requirement to ensure that pesticide use does not cause “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” They argue that the EPA understated or ignored important environmental and health costs, overstated the benefits, and relied on ineffective mitigation measures.
One of the key arguments presented in the plaintiffs’ recent motion for summary judgment is that the EPA failed to evaluate current usage data for Enlist products. Instead, the agency relied on data from 2018 and 2019, before the widespread adoption of Enlist-resistant crop seeds. The plaintiffs claim this oversight led to an incomplete analysis of the environmental impact of Enlist products. They also argue that the EPA did not adequately consider the future use of these herbicides or the potential for increased weed resistance to 2,4-D, dicamba, and glyphosate.
Additionally, the plaintiffs highlight the human health impacts of Enlist One and Enlist Duo. They cite a 2015 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” and recent studies suggesting that 2,4-D can cause cancer. The plaintiffs assert that the EPA’s failure to address these health concerns demonstrates a lack of thorough analysis.
The implications of this lawsuit are significant for the agricultural industry and environmental policy. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could revoke the labels for both Enlist products, making them unavailable for use. This would impact farmers who rely on these herbicides to manage resistant weeds and could spur further debate about the regulation of pesticides in the United States.
As the legal battle unfolds, it underscores the complex interplay between agricultural innovation, environmental protection, and public health. The outcome of this case will not only affect the use of Enlist One and Enlist Duo but also set a precedent for future pesticide registrations and the EPA’s approach to balancing the benefits and risks of agricultural chemicals.