EPA’s Workplan for ESA: A Moving Target for the Agricultural Industry
December 1, 2024 Two months after the EPA’s release of the final Herbicide Strategy in August 2024, the American Soybean Association (ASA) raised concerns after the U.S. EPA placed additional restrictions on farmers following a new registration for glufosinate-P, which was announced on October 18, 2024.
According to the ASA, during the glufosinate-P draft registration comment period, “environmental groups claimed the number of runoff points and the size of the spray drift buffers currently required by EPA are insufficient.”
Initially, the EPA defended its findings and asserted that the registration would not jeopardize species or their habitats. In addition, the EPA stated that the draft registration was informed by the Herbicide Strategy.
Yet, additional restrictions were included in the final label.
“Somewhere between the draft and final registration, the EPA, without explanation, tripled the number of ESA runoff points required and imposed a new 10-foot mandatory ground spray drift buffer farmers must adopt to use the new glufosinate-P herbicide,” states Alan Meadows, an ASA director and soybean grower.
“Growers should be worried about the precedent this will set,” Meadows cautions.
- Download the full Special Report: The ABCs of ESA
Kyle Kunkler, ASA’s Director of Government Affairs, acknowledged the range of uncertainties facing farmers under the EPA’s workplan for ESA. Not only is there a risk of changes to the workplan, but the regulatory process itself could be faulty.
During the November 15, 2024 educational webinar, The ABCs of ESA, a roundtable discussion and companion to this publication that featured the ASA’s Kunkler, Eileen Bernard from Nutrien, Scott Addy from Wilbur-Ellis, and Eric Spandl from WinField United, Kunkler stated that: “Currently, EPA’s risk assessment process significantly overstates pesticide risks to listed species, which in turn asks farmers and applicators to adopt costly restrictions that may be unnecessary to protect species. How can we ensure that the regulatory process is appropriate and only requires farmers adopt restrictions that are genuinely necessary and supported by science?”
Kunkler also points out the potential for burdening farmers with costly and complex compliance requirements.
“How can we ensure farmers and applicators have sufficient options available that are not financially burdensome? The mitigations the EPA currently makes available for compliance are generally costly and require field modifications. Additional options are needed that are affordable and not contingent on geography or crop type.”
Meanwhile, the Herbicide Strategy and Insecticide Strategy are incredibly complex. Farmers and applicators must consider “dozens of factors when calculating runoff/erosion and spray drift mitigations for every field in their operation,” states Kunkler. “How can we simplify this for farmers to ease compliance and protect those who are making diligent attempts to comply?”
Therein lies the dilemma. Whilst the industry continues to make good-faith efforts to work with the EPA to provide rigorous and current data, feedback, and earnestly do its part to comply with the requirements of the workplan, it’s the uncertainties and threat of ongoing changes that could present one of the biggest challenges to the industry.
- Download the full Special Report: The ABCs of ESA
Subscribe Today For
