Key facts
- EPA documents show the agency allowed Bayer to choose regulatory options for the weedkiller dicamba.
- Bayer selected less protective mitigation options for dicamba's volatility and runoff.
- Dicamba is linked to killing vegetation and crops, and is linked to liver cancer and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
- Courts have twice ordered dicamba off the market due to drift problems.
- The EPA's current approval of dicamba offers fewer protections than past approvals, according to a lawsuit.
- The EPA stated that the process is the regulatory system working as intended and that registrants can submit mitigation ideas.
Newly released internal documents from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reveal that the agency allowed pesticide giant Bayer to select regulatory options for the controversial weedkiller dicamba. The documents, obtained through ongoing litigation, detail an exchange where the EPA presented Bayer with a menu of choices for mitigating dicamba's volatility and runoff, and Bayer opted for less protective measures.
Dicamba is known for its tendency to drift, causing damage to crops, vegetation, and wildlife for miles around application sites. It has also been linked to liver cancer and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and courts have twice ordered it off the market due to drift issues, though the EPA has re-approved it.
According to the documents, the EPA solicited Bayer's input on restrictions, including two options for volatility mitigation: one preventing applications above 85F, and a less restrictive one allowing applications up to 95F if the treated acreage was reduced. Bayer chose the latter. For runoff mitigation, Bayer was presented with three options and selected one. Bayer also requested and received an additional change allowing full-field treatments at higher temperatures if dicamba was not tank-mixed.
Environmental advocates criticized the process. Nathan Donley of the Center for Biological Diversity stated that the EPA allowing Bayer to choose its own mitigation measures is problematic. Kelly Ryerson of Maha advocate called it undeniable evidence that the EPA is 'fully captured by a crooked collection of pesticide company players.'
An EPA spokesperson defended the process, stating it is the regulatory system working as intended, where agencies work with registrants to identify solutions and that registrants are permitted to submit ideas that preserve their product's utility, but do not dictate terms.