CFS et al v. EPA

Reference :

14-73359 14-73353

Complaint date :

October 22, 2014

Status :

Final judgment

Place of jurisdiction :

United States, San Francisco

Plaintiffs types :

Health/Food groups, Environmental NGOs, Farmers, Unions

Plaintiffs names :

Center for Food Safety (CFS), Earthjustice, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Environmental Working Group (EWG), National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC), Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (14-73353)

Defendants :

EPA, Gina McCarty

Lawyers for Health and Environmental Justice :

George A. Kimbrell, Sylvia Shih-Yau Wu, Paul H. Achitoff, Gregory C. Loarie

Case nature :

Administrative

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

Herbicide, Enlist Duo, 2,4-D, Glyphosate

Requests :

Review and set aside the final order of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granting unconditional 2 registration of Enlist Duo Herbicide (Enlist Duo)

Name of the Court :

Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit of San Francisco, United States

Jurisdiction level :

Decision date :

No description

Decision nature :

Positive

Decision content :

The court vacates the 2014 and 2015 decisions and sending the Enlist Duo registration back to EPA for further review.

Legal basis :

Court Ruling :

No description

Summary :

Groups sue the EPA for approving Dow AgroScience’s herbicide Enlist Duo, a mixture of glyphosate and 2,4-D, which are highly toxic, to be sprayed directly on GMO corn, soybean, and cotton plants that are genetically engineered by Dow specifically to survive exposure to the pesticide. The 2014 registration allowed Enlist Duo to be used in six states. On 3/31/2015, EPA amended the 2014 registration to include nine additional states. The lawsuits challenging the 2014 registration were amended to challenge EPA’s 2015 actions along with the initial 2014 registration on 4/20/2015. EPA asked the court to vacate the registration of Enlist Duo and send it back to EPA so the agency could redo the registration process with the new data collected by Dow about Enlist Duo that EPA had not considered in its 2014 decision. The court agreed, vacating the 2014 and 2015 decisions and sending the Enlist Duo registration back to EPA for further review.

Scientific references :

No scientifice reference for this case.