CFS et al. v. EPA

June 6, 2023
Not judged
United States, Washington State

Environmental NGOs
Center for Food Safety (CFS), Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), Alianza Nacional de Campesinas
EPA, Michael S. Regan
Kristina Sinclair, Amy van Saun, Jenny Loda

Civil action for injunctive and declaratory relief
Glyphosate, 2,4-D, Enlist Duo, Enlist one
Declare the EPA's registration decisions for Enlist One and Enlist Duo contrary to FIFRA and ESA and their respective implementing regulations. Declare that the EPA has not justified its decisions to renew these products. Rescind the registration renewal decisions. Grant such other relief as may be necessary and appropriate to terminate the use and sale of any EPA-approved product.
District Court of Columbia of Washington State , United States

On June 6, 2023, the Center for Food Safety (CFS), Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and Alianza Nacional de Campesinas filed an appeal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington State) against two decisions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
- The first decision, dated January 11, 2022, concerns the renewal of marketing authorizations for two glyphosate-based pesticides, Enlist One and Enlist Duo (which also includes 2,4-D, the active ingredient in Agent Orange).
- The second, dated March 28, 2022, amended the registrations of Enlist One and Enlist Duo to remove hundreds of restrictions at county level.

According to the NGOs, the decisions violate both the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA") and the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), as the EPA failed to consider unreasonable adverse effects on health and the environment, and failed to consult the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency with expertise in wildlife matters, before making said decisions. They are therefore asking the Court to annul these registrations, to grant the necessary measures to halt the use and sale of Enlist One and Enlist Duo until the EPA complies with its obligations under FIFRA and the ESA, and to grant the necessary measures to remedy any harm caused to wildlife and the environment by the EPA's registration decisions.

As a reminder, shortly before the EPA decided to extend the authorizations for these herbicides for a further seven years, until 2027, the Ninth Circuit ruled in 2020 that the previous authorizations were unlawful, as they violated FIFRA by significantly underestimating the risks to milkweed and monarch butterflies.

The EPA and the Department of Justice have 21 days to respond.