Voices throughout the ag community blew up last week when news of a recent dicamba ruling hit the fan and began to drift across the country.
Dicamba out: Early last week, an Arizona-based U.S. district judge vacateddicamba’s 2020 registrations, basically handing the herbicide its pink slip. The decision centered around procedural snafus by the EPA. In his opinion, Judge David Bury noted that “the EPA did not afford notice, comment, or any opportunity for hearing when it issued the 2020 dicamba registrations.”
According to the ruling, the EPA violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) when it failed to comply with the comment procedure before allowing over-the-top (OTT) use of the herbicide.
As a result of the ruling, registrations for Bayer’s Xtendimax, BASF’s Engenia, and Syngenta’s Tavium are now gone. Or are they??
Ag responds: With planting season just around the corner, the ag community was immediately in an uproar because most farmers have already purchased their seed—including dicamba-tolerant varieties. Voices across the industry are urging the EPA to allow existing dicamba stocks to be used up.
Soundbites: ″We urge EPA to immediately appeal the ruling.” — National Cotton Council
“We want to make sure that EPA can find a way to not disrupt and allow farmers to utilize what they’ve currently purchased for the 2024 growing season.” — RJ Karney, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
“Especially coming at a time when most growers have already purchased seeds and herbicides for the growing season, this ruling stands to inflict great financial harm and uncertainty on many farmers preparing for spring planting.” — American Soybean Association President Josh Gackle
What’s ahead: The EPA is permitted under FIFRA to allow the use of stockpiled products that have been canceled. Stay tuned for their future decision.
Short Corn Packs a Punch
Dynamite comes in small packages—which can be true with new seed technology. What’s...
Congress to EPA: What’s Your BEEF with Meat Packers?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering new regulations that take aim at meat and poultry processors.
And some members of Congress have a BEEF with the EPA’s proposals.
The proposed rules: In late January, the EPA released the details of its proposed “Clean Water Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point source category.”
Huh?
Basically, the EPA formally published its proposals to combat wastewater contaminants that come from slaughterhouses.
Okay… that makes more sense.
At the heart of the rules proposal is a concern from environmental groups about nitrogen and phosphorus pollutants that originate from slaughterhouses. In some cases, the wastewater goes directly into waterways. In other cases, the water goes to municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
But not everyone is on board with the EPA’s suggestions…
Congress responds: Last week, two U.S. representatives—Eric Burlison (MO) and Ron Estes (KS)—pushed back against the EPA and introduced the “Banning EPA’s Encroachment of Facilities (BEEF) Act.” If passed and signed by President Biden, the law would prohibit the EPA from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the rule.
According to the lawmakers, the proposed rules place undue burden on small processors—costs that can be absorbed by larger companies.
Soundbite: “The… proposed regulation isn’t just an attack on family-run small businesses, it’s an attack on rural communities,” said Burlison. “These meat and poultry processors are the lifeblood of our communities. The BEEF Act… lets these hardworking Americans do what they do best, produce safe, affordable food for our families.”
University of Illinois Makes Big Mooves in Milk Production
Pump it up: Scientists led by Matt Wheeler at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign are...