CBD et al. v. EPA

Reference :

4:20-cv-00555-DCB

Complaint date :

December 23, 2020

Status :

Not judged

Place of jurisdiction :

United States, Arizona

Plaintiffs types :

Environmental NGOs, Health/Food groups

Plaintiffs names :

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) ; Center for Food Safety (CFS) ; Family Farm Coalition ; Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA)

Defendants :

EPA, Andrew Wheeler, Other

Lawyers for Health and Environmental Justice :

George A. Kimbrell, Sylvia Shih-Yau Wu, Meredith Stevenson, Stephanie M. Parent

Case nature :

Administrative

Specificities :

Civil action for injunctive and declaratory relief

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

Dicamba, Herbicide, Xtendimax, Engenia, Tavium

Requests :

Declare that the Registration Actions and dicamba product registrations violate FIFRA and its implementing regulations; Declare that EPA failed to support the Registration Actions and dicamba product registrations with substantial evidence; Declare that the Registration Actions and product registrations are new uses that required public notice and comment… ; Set aside, or vacate, the Registration Actions and product registrations in whole or part as needed to stop their sale and use...

Name of the Court :

United States District Court of Arizona of Arizona, United States

Jurisdiction level :

Summary :

The associations National Family Farm Coalition, Pesticide Action Network, Center for Food Safety and Center for Biological Diversity are questioning the legality of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to approve the registration of three products based on dicamba, an organochlorine herbicide produced by the American company Monsanto (acquired by Bayer in 2018).

The previous decision had been ruled unlawful by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 3, 2020, as the agency had failed to take into account the "enormous and unprecedented damage" caused by dicamba drift, damage that has "torn apart the social fabric of many farming communities". According to the NGOs, the EPA has once again failed to meet its legal obligations to ensure that the pesticide does not cause unreasonable harm to farmers and farming communities, as well as to the environment and hundreds of endangered species. The new labeling restrictions introduced by the manufacturers and validated by the EPA, aimed at resolving the many problems of previous illegal registrations, are not sufficient to contain the risks linked to the volatility of the active substance dicamba.

The associations filed an initial complaint on December 23, 2020. Then the proceedings were suspended due to parallel challenges.The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had to determine jurisdiction over dicamba registrations, which it did on July 21, 2023, holding that control of this regulation fell to the district courts (no. 20-1441).

On April 12, 2023, the NGOS again challenged the EPA's renewal of registration of complete dicamba-based formulations, based on an alleged violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Scientific references :

No scientifice reference for this case.