CFS v. EPA et al

No description
June 13, 2022
Not judged
United States

Health/Food groups
Center for Food Safety (CFS)
EPA, Michael S. Regan
Amy van Saun, Sylvia Shih-Yau Wu, Meredith Stevenson

Administrative
Petition for review
Difenoconazole, Fungicide, Triazole
That the Court holds that: (1) EPA violated its duties under FIFRA in approving the Interim Registration; and (2) EPA violated the Agency’s duties under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), by failing to consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service to insure that the Interim Registration will not jeopardize any listed species or destroy or adversely modify any of their critical habitats.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States
Appellate (Appeal) Court

CFS is challenging the EPA's reapproval of difenoconazole, a member of the triazole fungicide family. In the 2000s, EPA initiated a moratorium on new approvals of triazole fungicides because of concerns about their safety. Manufacturers conducted animal studies but never submitted them. Despite this, the EPA abandoned the moratorium, allowing new triazole fungicides and new uses for these products. According to CFS, the EPA illegally approved this product despite animal studies showing that it poses serious risks to human health and the environment. The EPA also failed to evaluate the triazoles as a group and not just individually, which does not account for the cumulative effects of the substances. In addition, EPA failed to assess the role of the substances in promoting resistance to vital antifungal drugs. Finally, CFS accuses EPA of violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by leaving vulnerable species at risk of exposure to difenoconazole.