Seeds treated with neonicotinoids do not have to go through their own registration process, a federal judge in California has ruled.
The decision, issued Wednesday, was a win for EPA and agricultural groups that intervened to defend its decision, and a defeat for environmental groups that had challenged the “treated article” exemption in federal pesticide law.
Amy van Saun, senior attorney at Center for Food Safety, said CFS and Pesticide Action Network North America "will be rigorously exploring all our legal options, including an appeal of this decision, as well as other legal actions.”
“Neonicotinoid-treated seeds are used on at least half of all croplands in the U.S. but pose an extreme danger to birds, bees, and other pollinators,” she said. “With the future of agriculture and entire food webs on the line, it is irresponsible and unlawful that these pesticides will continue to be exempted from registration.”
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston noted that “the impact these neonicotinoids have on the environment and agricultural yield is hotly contested by the parties,” with the ag intervenors arguing that “seed treatment reduces the overall amount of pesticides used compared to spraying” and minimizes off-target exposure.
"Syngenta, a major neonic manufacturer, has disputed findings of harmful impacts on pollinators and birds, and says on its website that “neonicotinoids are rigorously tested before going to market to ensure they can be used safely and effectively.”
The agricultural intervenors include CropLife America, the American Seed Trade Association, American Soybean Association, Agricultural Retailers Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, and National Cotton Council of America.
In her opinion, Illston also said “EPA currently exempts treated seeds from going through a separate registration process, reasoning that the registration for the treating pesticides provides sufficient data about the overall impact of the pesticides, including through their application to treated seeds.”
She found the “treated article” exemption to registration in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to be ambiguous before ruling that EPA’s denial of a petition submitted by CFS and PANNA was “fair and considered.”
“The court is not persuaded by any of plaintiffs’ three arguments,” Illston said. “The EPA’s interpretation of its own regulation is reasonable and owed deference. The EPA’s petition denial did not fail to consider relevant evidence. Lastly, to the extent that the EPA lacks certain data, plaintiffs must challenge these gaps in an alternate proceeding.”
CFS and PANNA sued EPA in 2021 after the agency failed to respond to a 2017 CFS rulemaking petition “calling on EPA to close the loophole that allows these coated seeds to evade federal pesticide registration and labeling requirements, which are otherwise required for all insecticides,” CFS said. After EPA denied the petition, the groups sued again in 2023, challenging the denial as unlawful.
For more news, go to www.Agri-Pulse.com.
