{"id":40893,"date":"2026-02-05T00:01:59","date_gmt":"2026-02-05T05:01:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=40893"},"modified":"2026-02-09T10:15:33","modified_gmt":"2026-02-09T15:15:33","slug":"amid-immediate-and-chronic-health-and-environmental-effects-drift-prone-herbicide-slated-for-reapproval","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2026\/02\/amid-immediate-and-chronic-health-and-environmental-effects-drift-prone-herbicide-slated-for-reapproval\/","title":{"rendered":"Amid Immediate and Chronic Health and Environmental Effects, Drift-Prone Herbicide Slated for Reapproval"},"content":{"rendered":"

[Update on February 9, 2026:<\/strong> In a press release on Friday, February 6, titled “EPA Implements Strongest Protections in Agency History for Over-the-Top Dicamba Use on Cotton and Soybeans for Next Two Growing Seasons<\/a>,” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to ignore the wide body of science that documents harms from dicamba, as well as the viability of alternative methods, in establishing what the agency is boasting are “the strongest protections in agency history for over-the-top (OTT) dicamba application on dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybean crops” as a direct response to the “strong advocacy of America’s cotton and soybean farmers.” These so-called “strong protections” are described as a way to ensure farmers can access the tools they “need” while also protecting the environment from dicamba’s harmful drift. In using “gold-standard science and radical transparency,” EPA created new label restrictions for the next two growing seasons that include “cutting the amount of dicamba that can be used annually in half, doubling required safety agents, requiring conservation practices to protect endangered species, and restricting applications during high temperatures when exposure and volatility risks increase.” Relying on unenforceable label restrictions and mitigation measures, however, fails to adequately protect health and the environment. See here<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0here<\/a> for further analysis on the failure of EPA’s mitigation measures.<\/em>]<\/p>\n

***
\n(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, February 5, 2026) As shared in coverage on January 30, 2026, by The Washington Post<\/a><\/em>, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to reapprove dicamba<\/a>, \u201can herbicide for genetically modified soybean and cotton crops, even while acknowledging continued concerns from some growers about spillover effects, according to two EPA staffers and a draft statement obtained by The Washington Post<\/em>.\u201d Despite EPA\u2019s previous two approvals of dicamba that were vacated in federal courts, this comes as part of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative, in which EPA\u2019s Administrator Lee Zeldin pushes for the use of harmful pesticides in conflict with stated MAHA goals.<\/p>\n

In a recent article by The New Lede<\/a><\/em>, Nathan Donley, PhD, and Environmental Health Science Director for the Center for Biological Diversity, says this will be the next round of \u2018MAHA-washing’, as \u201cZeldin\u2019s MAHA-washing paints the same rosy picture to distract from decisions that harm public health.\u201d The Washington Post,<\/em> based on an unreleased statement from EPA, reports that \u201cEPA characterizes the new use guidelines as \u2018the most protective dicamba registration in agency history\u2019 and notes the inclusion of \u2018several measures\u2019 to head off \u2018ecological risks.\u2019\u201d This follows the latest proposed registration from July 2025,<\/a> in which the agency said it would address volatility (tendency to vaporize\/turn into a gas) concerns and runoff risk. \u201cThe statement seen by The Post did not say which of those measures would be in the final version, but one employee said it would be very similar to the proposal,\u201d says Amudalat Ajasa, environmental health news reporter for The Washington Post<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Based on the Dicamba Market Size, Share, and Growth Forecast 2026 \u2013 2033<\/a> by Persistence Market Research, the global dicamba market is projected to reach $702.9 million in 2026 and $1,212.5 million by 2033. These estimates are \u201cprimarily driven by the rising incidence of glyphosate<\/a>-resistant weeds and the broader adoption of dicamba-tolerant crops, particularly soybean and cotton.\u201d The report also notes that North America leads the dicamba market with ~39.4% share. With the reapproval of dicamba on the horizon, these numbers could become a stark reality.<\/p>\n

Dicamba\u2019s History of Health and Environmental Implications<\/strong><\/p>\n

As Beyond Pesticides references in the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management<\/a> entry for dicamba, this chemical is suspected of causing cancer, along with a myriad of other documented health and environmental effects, such as neurotoxicity, reproductive dysfunction, kidney\/liver damage, birth\/developmental effects, detection in groundwater, leaching, and toxicity to birds and fish\/aquatic organisms. There is a \u201cstrong association between dicamba use and an increased risk of developing various cancers, including liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and acute myeloid leukemia.\u201d (See study here<\/a>.) Additional research<\/a> suggests that dicamba causes DNA damage (causing DNA mutations and inducing oxidative stress \u2013 two pathways known to cause cancer) and is also linked to antibiotic resistance.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

As highlighted in Beyond Pesticides\u2019 comments to EPA<\/a> in September 2025, with a subsequent Action of the Week<\/em> to Tell EPA To Ban Drift-Prone Herbicides<\/a>, dicamba is highly prone to drift and harms people, crops, and wildlife. The term \u201cdrift\u201d applies to airborne movement off the target site, though pesticides can also move as runoff and in soil carried by water or wind. Drift may consist of particles or droplets of pesticide as it is applied or vapors that evaporate and are carried in the air. Farmers and applicators may take steps to avoid drift\u2014including buffer zones, thickening agents, and attention to wind direction\u2014but drift-prone pesticides like dicamba are not always controlled by these actions.<\/p>\n

Dicamba has been the focus of many court cases for this reason, as it is responsible for millions of acres of crop damage and harm to numerous organisms including endangered species. New problems with nontarget dicamba drift, contamination, and crop damage were identified in 2016 when EPA registered a new formulation of dicamba to control weeds in cotton and soybean crops that have been genetically engineered (GE) to tolerate the chemical. In 2020, the Ninth Circuit nullified \u201cEPA\u2019s 2018 conditional registration of three dicamba weed killer products for use on an estimated 60 million acres of DT (dicamba-tolerant through genetic modification\/engineering) soybeans and cotton.\u201d (See here<\/a>.) The previous court case found that EPA did not adequately consider adverse effects from over-the-top (OTT) dicamba in approving the conditional registration.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Soy crops are particularly sensitive to pesticide drift from dicamba, and use of dicamba increased even after GE soy crops began being utilized. As the Center for Biological Diversity<\/a> states: \u201cSince dicamba was approved for \u2018over-the-top\u2019 spraying its use has increased twentyfold. The EPA estimates 65 million acres (two-thirds of soybeans and three-fourths of cotton) are dicamba-resistant, with roughly half that acreage sprayed with dicamba, an area nearly the size of Alabama. Much of the unsprayed crops are planted \u2018defensively\u2019 by farmers to avoid dicamba drift damage.\u201d<\/p>\n

With the documentation of drift damage for off-target crops, new formulations of dicamba were created to attempt to prevent drift damage, but still proved too drift-prone and problematic to be used without incident. Damage to habitats and food sources for various organisms, most notably birds and insects, occurs as a result of dicamba drift. Multiple studies<\/a> and court filings show dicamba\u2019s ability to drift well over a mile off-site after an application.<\/p>\n

Dicamba creates \u201can \u2018ecological disaster\u2019 in the name of profit<\/a>\u201d and damages other crops, such as fruit trees. Despite a court ruling in 2022 that \u201cEPA failed to account for how ‘dicamba use would tear the social fabric of farming communities’\u2026 EPA sided with moneyed interests over the well-being of average Americans in farming communities.\u201d (See here<\/a>.) Farmers rely on their crop production to make a living, and yet continued use of dicamba occurs despite \u201c4 percent of soybean fields [being] damaged by off-target dicamba movement in 2018\u201d and \u201cdamage from dicamba [being] reported on approximately 1 in every 13 fields [about 8%]\u201d in some states, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture<\/a> (USDA).<\/p>\n

Beyond Pesticides finds the \u2018high benefits\u2019 of dicamba are overstated and improperly considered, as EPA\u2019s benefit and risk assessments rely heavily on unenforceable mitigation measures and do not adequately consider acute impacts on aquatic species and ecosystem services from impaired habitats. (See here<\/a> and here<\/a>.) The previously proposed mitigation measures are insufficient to protect public health, as well as the health of wildlife and the environment.<\/p>\n

All dicamba formulations have the potential to volatilize since dicamba has a high vapor pressure, with increases in air temperature causing dicamba to turn into a gas even after successful application on target surfaces. Since volatilization increases as temperatures increase, this is more and more concerning as temperatures are rising higher each year. The length, intensity, and onset of seasons have changed, which can be attributed to climate change<\/a>. The longer and hotter summers will exacerbate dicamba volatilization and lead to more drift\u2014especially for post-emergent and OTT applications.<\/p>\n

Daily News<\/em><\/strong> Coverage<\/strong><\/p>\n

For decades, Beyond Pesticides has documented the troublesome history of dicamba, including both adverse health and environmental effects as well as the regulatory deficiencies allowing for unreasonable exposure to this product. See below for a roundup of Daily News<\/em> articles on dicamba from the past two years.<\/p>\n