{"id":31669,"date":"2022-09-30T00:01:33","date_gmt":"2022-09-30T04:01:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=31669"},"modified":"2022-09-29T14:42:27","modified_gmt":"2022-09-29T18:42:27","slug":"epas-failure-to-ban-glyphosate-keeps-burden-of-protection-with-consumers-and-local-and-state-governments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2022\/09\/epas-failure-to-ban-glyphosate-keeps-burden-of-protection-with-consumers-and-local-and-state-governments\/","title":{"rendered":"EPA\u2019s Failure to Ban Glyphosate Keeps Burden of Protection with Consumers and Local and State Governments"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, September 30, 2022) In late September, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the withdrawal of its Interim Decision<\/a> on glyphosate<\/a>, the active ingredient in multiple herbicides, most notably Monsanto\u2019s (now Bayer\u2019s) Roundup<\/a>. The action follows a slew of developments related to the herbicide<\/a>, including: the 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer\u2019s declaration of its carcinogenicity<\/a>; legal judgments and massive rewards<\/a> to victims who developed cancers after chronic exposures; advocate efforts to get EPA to recognize the dangers of, and curtail, its use; and pushback from industry \u2014 most of the latter two coming in the form of litigation. The withdrawal of that Interim Decision means, on the ground that this harmful compound can continue to be used until a next regulatory review decision by EPA. Beyond Pesticides has long been engaged in education on and advocacy against glyphosate use, and was a plaintiff in the 2020 lawsuit<\/a>, with the Center for Food Safety (CFS), et al., against EPA for this 2020 Interim Decision<\/a> (ID).<\/p>\r\n

Under FIFRA<\/a> (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) each pesticide must be reviewed by EPA every 15 years \u201cto ensure that existing pesticide products continue to perform their intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.\u201d Glyphosate\u2019s review was begun in 2009. Such reviews have multiple aspects, which is why EPA says, in its press release<\/a>, that it \u201cis announcing its withdrawal of all remaining portions of the interim registration review decision.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

Comprehensive coverage, by Beyond Pesticides, of the risks associated with the use of glyphosate (Roundup) herbicides can be found here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here<\/a>. EPA\u2019s webpage on glyphosate<\/a> offers multiple assertions and justifications for its ongoing allowance of use of glyphosate-based herbicides, as well as a history of EPA actions and regulations. Among its claims, based on \u201cindependent evaluation of available data for glyphosate\u201d are these findings related to human health: (1) no risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate; (2) no indication that children are more sensitive to glyphosate; and (3) no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.<\/p>\r\n

EPA\u2019s Interim Decision on glyphosate likewise asserted<\/a> that \u201cthere are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label. EPA also found that glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen.\u201d It did assert that there are \u201cpotential ecological risks to non-target organisms, primarily non-target plants through spray drift,\u201d and pointed to anemic text changes as a fix \u2014 \u201cinterim risk mitigation measures in the form of label changes, including spray drift management language, herbicide resistance management language, a non-target organism advisory, and certain label consistency measures.\u201d The ID came down, once again, on the side of industry<\/a> and the status quo in concluding that \u201cthe benefits of glyphosate outweigh the potential ecological risks when glyphosate is used in accordance with labels.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

As Beyond Pesticides wrote at the time<\/a>, \u201cEPA reapproval of\u00a0human carcinogens<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0chemicals contributing to the pollinator crisis<\/a>\u00a0is disappointing for health and environmental advocates, but not surprising to those watchdogging the agency. . . . \u2018This is how a captured agency behaves,\u2019 said Beyond Pesticides community resource and policy director Drew Toher. \u2018When EPA\u2019s decision making repeatedly reflects the exact wishes of the chemical industry, public trust erodes, and we must look to new policy mechanisms that support the protection of health and the environment.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\r\n

The final Interim Decision was challenged in 2020 by the lawsuit brought by CFS, Beyond Pesticides<\/a>, and several farmworker organizations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs argued that<\/a>:
\r\n\u2022 EPA\u2019s finding that \u201cglyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans\u201d flies in the face of both IARC and independent scientific research, as well as the tens of thousands of lawsuits<\/a>, some extremely successful, brought by glyphosate victims.<\/p>\r\n