CBD et al v. EPA et al

Reference :

No description

Complaint date :

October 23, 2020

Status :

Not judged

Place of jurisdiction :

United States, San Francisco

Plaintiffs types :

Environmental NGOs, Health/Food groups

Plaintiffs names :

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Center for Food Safety (CFS)

Defendants :

EPA

Lawyers for Health and Environmental Justice :

Jonathan Evans, Stephanie M. Parent

Case nature :

Civil court

Specificities :

Application for judicial review

Type(s), Product(s), Active substance(s) :

Fungicide, Inpyrfluxam, Ethaboxam, Metalaxyl

Requests :

Review of of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) failure to comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), and Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) in unconditionally registering for use the fungicide active ingredient inpyrfluxam … and all subsequent pesticide products made with the fungicide active ingredient inpyrfluxam.

Name of the Court :

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of San Francisco, United States

Jurisdiction level :

Summary :

CFS and CBD challenge the EPA's approval of inpyrfluxam, a toxic new fungicide, without fully addressing its lethal effects on endangered wildlife. They seek a review of of the EPA’s failure to comply with the requirements of the ESA and FIFRA in unconditionally registering for use the fungicide active ingredient inpyrfluxam.

Scientific references :

No scientifice reference for this case.