EPA eased herbicide regulations following Monsanto research, records show

Usage of dicamba increased greatly after the U.S. EPA approved new versions of the herbicide in November 2016. For the first time, it could be sprayed on soybean and cotton seeds genetically engineered to withstand the herbicide. The companies touted their new formulations of dicamba, a traditionally very volatile chemical, as less prone to move off target after application.

An agency spokesperson said it was “standard practice” to provide a proposed regulation to the public for comment and then follow it with a final decision that incorporated new information received during the comment period.

“EPA received new information that altered the final decision,” said Robert Daguillard, a spokesman for the agency.

After reports of widespread damage last year, however, the U.S. EPA increased regulations on dicamba in October, naming it a restricted use pesticide and limiting the conditions in which it could be sprayed. The buffer zone was not changed. Many states have issued additional restrictions.

In its March 2016 registration, the agency proposed a buffer zone to provide protection for “sensitive areas,” which are areas that host species that are protected under the Endangered Species Act.

The proposal had a 100-foot all-direction buffer, meaning that applicators could not spray dicamba within 100 feet of the edge of a field. If dicamba is sprayed at higher concentrations, the buffer would be increased to 220 feet.

The agency found that the buffer zone was necessary because of “past experience with other dicamba formulations and associated spray drift incident reporting,” according to the proposed registration.

In the EPA’s final registration, which was published on November 9, 2016, the agency changed the all-directional buffer to a 110-foot downwind buffer, meaning that applicators could not spray dicamba within 110 feet of the downwind edge of the field.

“Monsanto responded to these concerns with an additional submission post-proposal that acknowledged the long-recognized volatility of dicamba acid and described measurements of the volatilization in the different formulations,” the agency’s final registration said.

Between the two registrations, Monsanto submitted studies conducted in Georgia and Texas, which were states that received zero complaints about dicamba in 2017. Those studies found that drift and volatilization was minimal.  Based on those studies, the EPA found “the 110-foot omnidirectional buffer for volatilization is no longer warranted.”

Daguillard, the EPA spokesman, pointed out that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which regulates pesticides, requires companies to perform safety studies.

“Thus, the pesticide companies, rather than the taxpayers, shoulder the cost of performing the safety studies on pesticides required by EPA,” he said. “EPA, however, has extensive requirements in place to ensure that the data generated by pesticide companies are scientifically sound and provide sufficient information to assess the potential risks of a pesticide.”

He said that EPA scientists rely on more than just these studies, including “other governments, academia, and published scientific literature.”

“EPA maintains a transparent, public process for assessing potential risks to human health and the environment when evaluating pesticide products,” he said.

However, research conducted in 2017 at the University of Arkansas found that dicamba drifts up to 220 feet, more than double the EPA buffer zone.

Pesticide applicators, the Illinois Department of Agriculture, BASF, Monsanto and the U.S. EPA were all aware of the risks that dicamba posed to sensitive areas that are home to wildlife habitat for endangered species, according to a February 23, 2017, email written by Jean Payne, president of the Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Association. The association includes pesticide applicators and chemical companies.

“Roadside ditches, grass field borders, treelines or shrubs/bushes in field borders, etc. ARE sensitive areas,” Payne wrote, saying she had confirmed that information with Dan Kenney, branch chief of the herbicides division of the U.S. EPA. “He said they had to do this to meet Endangered Species demands (from lawsuits) put upon them with regard to the issuance of these new labels.”

This story was republished from The Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting, a nonprofit, online newsroom offering investigative and enterprise coverage of agribusiness.