Court Reinstates Suit Alleging Roundup “Expiration” Due to Carcinogenic Impurity

/in ,

Allegations that Monsanto’s popular Roundup-brand weedkillers degrade into a carcinogenic impurity will proceed, after the Ninth Circuit reinstated a proposed class action a district court had dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Unlike the many personal injury suits over Roundup, the plaintiffs in this case assert purely economic harms.  They allege that consumers would have paid less for concentrated Roundup products had they known that glyphosate—the active ingredient—gradually degrades into harmful levels of N-Nitrosoglyphosate (NNG) over time from exposure to nitrites in “everyday air and water,” effectively causing the products to “expire.”

The District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case in December 2023, finding two key allegations implausible: that NNG is substantially certain to form at levels of 1 part per million (ppm), and that 1 ppm NNG is unsafe.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed, emphasizing that plausibility does not require probability.  While no regulation sets a specific 1 ppm limit for NNG, the panel found that an expert opinion combined with EPA statements sufficed to support a plausible claim regarding NNG’s hazard.

Similarly, although the complaint failed to allege that any products purchased by the plaintiffs or other consumers contained 1 ppm NNG, the court held that a variety of factual allegations—including that “Monsanto had discovered NNG at levels above 1 ppm in relevant products in its own possession”—were enough to make the plaintiffs’ claim about the occurrence of 1 ppm NNG plausible.

However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims against Roundup distributor The Scotts Co., finding that plaintiffs failed to allege that Scotts had “unbridled control” over the challenged conduct or knowledge of the alleged expiration.

The Ninth Circuit also criticized the lower court’s reliance on an incomplete version of a key study submitted by Monsanto, which likely presented findings in a more favorable light.  “The parties and the court should be concerned about submission of and reliance upon an incomplete document,” the opinion states.

The case is Koller v. Monsanto Co., No. 24-43, opinion filed March 27, 2025.

First Trials Scheduled in Long-Running Paraquat Litigation

/in , ,

The first three trials have been scheduled to begin in October 2025 in a multidistrict litigation with over 5,800 plaintiffs claiming that exposure to the pesticide paraquat dichloride caused them to develop Parkinson’s disease.  A second set of trials is scheduled to begin in April 2026.

The case was filed in June 2021.  A previous set of trial cases were tossed in April 2024 after the court ruled that expert testimony linking the herbicide to Parkinson’s disease relied on “methodological contortions and outright violations of…scientific standards.”

Defendants Syngenta and Chevron maintain that there is no causal link.  They also argue that the litigation is “burdened by cases alleging implausible theories of paraquat exposure,” despite court efforts to clean the docket of cases that “should never have been filed.”

EPA has not found a “clear link” between paraquat exposure from labeled uses and Parkinson’s disease or cancer.  However, on January 17, 2025, EPA asked the Ninth Circuit to allow the agency to withdraw a 2021 interim decision on paraquat to give the agency more time to consider its health risks.

According to EPA, paraquat is one of the most widely used pesticides in the US.  It often referred to as Gramoxone, the name of a popular end-use product manufactured by Syngenta.  Chevron stopped manufacturing and distributing paraquat in 1986.

The case is In Re: Paraquat Products Liability Litigation v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, No. 3:21-md-03004 (S.D. Ill.).

EPA Issues Seldom-Used Emergency Order to Suspend Registrations of Pesticide DCPA

/in , , ,

For the first time in almost 40 years, EPA has issued an emergency order under section 6(c)(3) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to suspend the registrations of all pesticide products containing the active ingredient dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA).

The emergency measure is based on DCPA’s thyroid effects in fetuses, which EPA deemed so severe that continued use of DCPA during the time period required to cancel its registrations would pose an imminent hazard.  According to EPA, thyroid hormone perturbations linked to DCPA “can lead to downstream health problems such as low birth weight, impaired brain development, decreased IQ, impaired motor skills, and decreased bone deposition.”

Occupational exposures to DCPA can be over twice as high (as a factor of body weight) as the level at which the thyroid effects were observed in mouse fetuses, and the herbicide’s residues present risks of concern even 30 days after application to crops, EPA said.  DCPA is also registered for non-agricultural uses, including on golf courses and athletic fields.

American Vanguard Corporation (AMVAC), the sole registrant of DCPA, voluntarily canceled all but two of its DCPA products and their use on turf.  It also voluntarily ceased sale and distribution of the only remaining end-use product until EPA approved product labels that would address DCPA’s risks.  However, EPA “determined that there is no combination of practicable mitigations under which DCPA use can continue without presenting an imminent hazard.”

DCPA is currently undergoing registration review, which occurs every 15 years.  EPA assessed DCPA’s health risks in 2023 after AMVAC submitted a study on its thyroid effects and other information requested by the agency.

The agency intends to issue a notice of intent to cancel DCPA registrations within 90 days of the order, which was published on August 7, 2024.

Also known by its trade name Dacthal, DCPA is used on a variety of crops for weed control.  According to EPA, the emergency order will have a negligible impact on produce prices but may impact growers of crops including bok choy, collards, kale, green onions, and leeks.

Update:

On August 28, 2024, EPA announced that it is initiating a voluntary cancellation of DCPA after AMVAC notified the agency of its intent to cancel the remaining pesticide products.  According to EPA, AMVAC also intends to cancel its international registrations.

EPA Requests Comment on Petition Requiring Proof of Effectiveness for Systemic Insecticides

/in , ,

On November 24, 2023, EPA announced that the Agency is seeking public comment on a petition filed by environmental groups requesting that EPA consider efficacy data when evaluating the registration of neonicotinoids and other systemic insecticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).  Comments will be accepted through January 23, 2024.

In 1980, EPA waived (in most cases) the requirement that registrants provide efficacy data when registering a pesticide under FIFRA (see 40 CFR 158.400(e)(1)).  The petition, filed by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the American Bird Conservancy, argues that neonicotinoid use is largely ineffective and causes widespread environmental harm.  According to the petition, EPA’s failure to consider neonicotinoids’ lack of efficacy conflicts with the stated purposes of the Agency’s FIFRA registration data requirements to “make regulatory judgments…about the risks and benefits of pesticide products” (40 CFR 158.1(a)) and “ensure that pesticide products will perform as intended” (40 CFR 158.130(c)).

In addition to requiring efficacy data during systemic insecticide registration, the petition asks EPA to mandate that existing systemic insecticide registrants submit efficacy data to EPA within 180 days.  If a proposed or existing systemic insecticide registration “lacks a demonstration that its benefits exceed its environmental and overall costs,” EPA would be required to deny or revoke the registration accordingly.

Systemic insecticides are most commonly used prophylactically to treat plant seeds.  Treated seeds are currently exempted from FIFRA under the “treated articles and substances” exemption at 40 CFR 152.25(a) if their use is consistent with the treating pesticide’s label instructions.  However, EPA recently signaled that the Agency may revise this exemption.

Systemic insecticides are designed to be absorbed and transported through the target plant.  Neonicotinoids, a class of systemic insecticides that include the active ingredients imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, and clothianidin, are one of the most widely used types of insecticides in the world.

EPA Releases Strategic Plan for Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

/in , , ,

EPA has released a notice requesting comment on its strategic plan to meet its obligations under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to screen for and protect against endocrine-disrupting effects in humans. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that mimic, block, or disrupt the normal function of endocrine system hormones and can negatively impact biological processes within the endocrine, immune, and nervous systems. Under the new program, the Agency will assess pesticides more quickly and effectively to evaluate their potential to cause endocrine effects in humans. These assessments will be incorporated into pesticide review efforts made under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”).

In the Agency’s press release regarding the program, the Deputy Administrator for Pesticide Programs in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution, Jake Li, noted that the program is a major milestone. He also stated that “starting with our highest priority chemicals, EPA will communicate more transparently our endocrine findings for humans.”

EPA review of preliminary data has identified 30 high-priority pesticides that these chemicals affect the endocrine system. The Agency requests additional endocrine data for human health for these chemicals in its request for comment. The Agency intends to fill any remaining data gaps by issuing FIFRA human health data requests for these chemicals in early 2024. These chemicals are identified in EPA’s List of Conventional Registration Review Chemicals, for Which an FFDCA Section 408(p)(6) Determination is Needed, which is available in docket EPA–HQ–OPP–2023–0474 on regulations.gov. FFDCA section 408(p)(6) requires EPA to ‘‘as appropriate, take action under such statutory authority as is available to the Administrator, including consideration under other sections of this chapter, as is necessary to ensure the protection of public health’’ for ‘‘any substance that is found, as a result of testing and evaluation under this section, to have an endocrine effect on humans.’’ In addition, in the Federal Register notice, EPA requested that stakeholders submit data on the endocrine effects of these pesticides. Data are requested during the notice’s 60-day comment period. After the assessment of the high-priority pesticides is completed, the Agency will request data on a second group of 126 pesticides.

In the strategic plan, EPA explains that the program will pull from existing data when possible.   and request new data if needed. Existing data has been collected under FIFRA and the FFDCA. EPA has chosen 400 conventional pesticide active ingredients that are being registered for the first time or are undergoing registration review for which, through the implementation of its Strategic Plan, the Agency will assess for endocrine effects and determine if additional protections are needed.

The comment period for this notice began on October 27, 2023, and has been extended to February 26, 2024.

Eight Circuit Vacates Chlorpyrifos Ban

/in , , ,

EPA’s ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos was arbitrary and capricious because the Agency failed to adequately consider other options, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on November 2, 2023, in the case Red River Valley Sugarbeet Growers Ass’n v. Regan.

EPA’s 2021 revocation of all chlorpyrifos tolerances was the result of a Ninth Circuit decision ordering EPA to either modify chlorpyrifos tolerances to ensure they are safe for children or revoke them entirely.  EPA had previously determined that 11 “high-benefit” uses were likely to be safe if other uses were revoked.  But with only 60 days to make a decision and under a court directive not to “engage in additional fact-finding,” EPA opted to revoke all tolerances, effectively banning use of chlorpyrifos on all food and animal feed.

The Eighth Circuit characterized EPA’s decision to revoke all tolerances, despite evidence that some uses could be considered safe, as “g[iving] up” in the face of a “tight deadline.”  “EPA should not have reflexively rejected an approach it had the power to adopt, even if it would have required more work,” the court said.

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, EPA can only leave in place tolerances that the Agency has determined to be safe after consideration of aggregate exposure, “including all anticipated dietary exposures.”  In a 2022 order denying objections to the 2021 revocation, EPA argued that it would not be reasonable to consider exposures solely from the 11 high-benefit uses as “anticipated” because EPA did not have reason to believe they would reflect real-world exposures.  EPA is required to determine whether tolerances are safe, not whether they will be safe “at some unspecified future time,” the Agency said.

The court rejected this interpretation of the statute, which was central to EPA’s decision not to implement a partial ban.  The Agency has an “obligation to ‘anticipate[]’ the effects of its own actions,” Chief Judge Lavenski Smith wrote for the three-judge panel.  If EPA proposed to “keep a set of high-benefit uses in place,” it could certainly “anticipate what would happen under its own proposal.”

The court vacated both the 2021 revocation and the 2022 denial order, remanding to EPA.  The Agency will have 45 days from the date of the ruling to petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc.

More information on the legal battles over chlorpyrifos tolerances can be found in a previous Verdant Law blog post.

EPA Sued Over Herbicide Registration Renewal

/in , ,

On June 6, 2023, the Center for Food Safety and two other environmental groups sued EPA over the Agency’s decision to renew registrations for Enlist One and Enlist Duo, two herbicides manufactured by Corteva Agrisciences, LLC.  The case is currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia as Center for Food Safety v. EPA.

The lawsuit alleges that EPA failed to properly evaluate the Enlist products’ risks as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) and the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) when the Agency renewed the herbicides’ registrations until 2027.  According to the plaintiffs, the herbicides cause numerous adverse environmental effects, including harm to crops growing on neighboring properties and drinking water contamination.  The plaintiffs allege that EPA understated these risks in making its decision, while overstating the herbicides’ effectiveness.  In addition, the plaintiffs argue that EPA’s decision harms the survival, growth, and reproduction of exposed plants and animals, including endangered and threatened species.  The plaintiffs ask the court to vacate EPA’s decision and to stop the sale and use of the Enlist products.

In an EPA memorandum supporting the Agency’s decision, EPA stated that it had “evaluated the benefits and risks to human health and the environment from these products’ uses, including potential risk to non-target organisms, and conducted effects determinations for federally listed endangered and threatened species.”  According to EPA, the results of its evaluations and assessments were sufficient for the Agency to conclude that granting the registration renewal met the requirements of FIFRA and ESA.  These requirements include FIFRA section 3(c)(5), which directs EPA to register a pesticide when the Agency finds that the pesticide will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment, among other criteria; ESA section 7(a)(2), which requires EPA to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that actions taken by EPA do not jeopardize endangered and threatened species; and ESA section 7(d), which prevents EPA from taking irreversible action during 7(a)(2) consultation that eliminates the implementation of reasonable alternatives.

Enlist Duo has previously been the subject of litigation.  In National Family Farm Coalition, et al., v. U.S. EPA, et al., 966 F.3d 893 (9th Cir., 2020), petitioners challenged EPA’s decisions to register the herbicide in 2014, 2015, and 2017 on FIFRA and ESA grounds.  The panel rejected the petitioners’ ESA claims and the majority of the petitioners’ FIFRA claims, allowing Enlist Duo registration, but agreed with the petitioners that EPA did not properly assess harm to monarch butterflies due to the herbicide’s effects on milkweed.  The panel remanded the registration decision to EPA so the Agency could assess this concern and determine whether it presented an unreasonable adverse effect under FIFRA.

According to EPA, Enlist One and Enlist Duo are registered for use in 34 states for a variety of uses on corn, cotton, and soybeans.  Both herbicides contain the active ingredient 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid choline salt.  Enlist Duo also contains the active ingredient glyphosate.

Hearing Announced on EPA’s Intent to Cancel Chlorpyrifos Pesticide Registrations

/in ,

On June 21, 2023, EPA announced that a public hearing will be held in response to objections and hearing requests following EPA’s issuance of a Notice of Intent to Cancel (“NOIC”) pesticide registrations for three products containing chlorpyrifos. The hearing will begin at 9 a.m. on January 8, 2024, and will continue as necessary through January 11, 2024.

The objections and hearing requests following the NOIC came from a collection of grower groups and a producer of chlorpyrifos products. The petitioners are currently challenging EPA’s 2021 final rule, which revoked all tolerances for chlorpyrifos, in the Eighth Circuit case Red River Valley Sugarbeet Growers Association et al. v. Regan. The petitioners argue that EPA should stay or withdraw the NOIC until the pending case is decided.

EPA’s NOIC was the result of over a decade of efforts to ban chlorpyrifos use. In 2007, two non-profit organizations filed a petition requesting that EPA revoke all tolerances and cancel all registrations for chlorpyrifos, pointing to studies showing neurotoxic, developmental, endocrinal, and carcinogenic effects in humans and animals as a result of exposure. EPA did not take final action on the petition until it denied the petition in 2017, concluding that the science behind the effects of exposure remained unresolved.  In 2021, the Ninth Circuit vacated EPA’s decision in League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Regan. The court held that EPA had abdicated its statutory duty under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by failing to update the tolerances for chlorpyrifos despite its inability to conclude, to the statutory standard of reasonable certainty, that present tolerances caused no harm. The court ordered EPA to grant the 2007 petition and modify or revoke the tolerances accordingly. EPA opted to revoke all tolerances in the final rule.

In the ongoing case, Red River Valley Sugarbeet Growers Association et al. v. Regan, the grower groups and the chlorpyrifos producer argue that the final rule was arbitrary and capricious due to EPA’s disregard for safe chlorpyrifos uses. The petitioners observe that shortly before the final rule was published, EPA completed a human health assessment that found that chlorpyrifos use on eleven crops in select regions was safe. By refusing to act on its own evidence, the petitioners assert that EPA disregarded its statutory mandate to review the safety of tolerances using current science.

According to EPA, chlorpyrifos was registered for use in the U.S. beginning in 1965. At the time of the final rule, chlorpyrifos was registered for use on fruit and nut trees, many types of fruits and vegetables, and grain crops.

Oral Arguments in Monsanto “Roundup” Case

/in ,

On June 13, 2023, the full Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments in the case Carson v. Monsanto Co.  The case hinges on whether a Georgia law that requires Monsanto to warn consumers about risks the company knows about or has reason to know about is preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The appellant, John D. Carson Sr., alleges that he developed cancer due to regular use of Roundup, a glyphosate-based pesticide manufactured by Monsanto. Carson claims that Monsanto “has known for decades” that Roundup use can cause cancer and failed to label their products in a way that notified consumers of this risk as required by Georgia law.

FIFRA requires pesticide manufacturers to include warning labels on products that adequately protect consumer health, but EPA has concluded that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic” to humans.  FIFRA prohibits state labelling laws that are “in addition to or different from” FIFRA requirements (7 U.S.C. § 136v(b)). Monsanto argues that this language expressly preempts the Georgia law, while Carson contends that the Georgia law merely “parallels” FIFRA’s provisions. Carson cites Bates v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, interpreting the ruling to mean that claims “equivalent to” or narrower than FIFRA provisions are not preempted (544 U.S. 431, 447 (2005)).

Also at issue in the case is the question of whether EPA’s actions with regard to Roundup constitute “force of law.” Carson asserts that EPA’s registration of Roundup does not have the force of law necessary to preempt Georgia law.  Monsanto argues that no force-of-law analysis is required because “EPA determinations define the scope of preemption as a matter of statutory construction,” but also argues that EPA’s actions constitute force of law even if such an analysis is undertaken.

During oral arguments the court posed questions to Carson’s attorney regarding whether a force-of-law analysis is necessary and questioned the attorney representing Monsanto on whether the grounds for an impossibility preemption were met. In addition, both attorneys were asked whether the appeal was “collusive” due to the type of settlement the parties reached in the case.

Carson’s suit was initially dismissed by a Georgia court, which held that FIFRA expressly preempted the Georgia law. In July 2022, it was reinstated by a three-judge Eleventh Circuit panel which ruled in favor of Carson. The panel reached the same result in a new opinion in October 2022. Last December, the full Eleventh Circuit vacated the opinion, ordering that the case be heard en banc.

EPA Exempts Categories of Genetically Engineered Plant-Incorporated Protectants from Regulatory Requirements

/in , , ,

On May 31, 2023, EPA published a final rule exempting two categories of plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) created using genetic engineering from certain Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registration requirements and from food or feed residue tolerance requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).  In addition to reducing regulatory burden, EPA stated in a press release that the final rule may result in increased research and development in this sector and provide more pest control options for farmers, ultimately reducing the use of conventional pesticides.

PIPs are defined (in part) at 40 CFR 174.3 as “pesticidal substance[s] that [are] intended to be produced and used in a living plant, or in the produce thereof, and the genetic material necessary for production of such a pesticidal substance.”  In 2001, EPA exempted PIPs derived through conventional plant breeding from FIFRA registration and FFDCA food tolerance requirements, but did not exempt PIPs created using biotechnology.  Because of recent scientific advances, however, EPA writes that PIPs “can now be created through genetic engineering that are virtually indistinguishable from those created through conventional breeding.”  The final rule adds exemptions for the following two categories of genetically engineered PIPs, which EPA states pose no greater risk than PIPs created through conventional breeding:

  1. PIPs in which genetic engineering has been used to insert a gene from a sexually compatible plant or to modify a gene to match a gene found in a sexually compatible plant. This category of PIPs requires EPA confirmation of eligibility for the exemption.
  2. Loss-of-function PIPs, in which a gene is modified through genetic engineering to reduce or eliminate the activity of that gene. The loss of the activity of that gene then results in the pesticidal effect.  For this category of PIP, biotechnology developers can either make a self-determination that their PIP meets the exemption criteria, which requires notification but no EPA review, or request EPA confirmation of eligibility for the exemption.

Exempted PIPs are still subject to the adverse effects reporting requirements at 40 CFR 174.71 and recordkeeping requirements.

In the preamble to the final rule, EPA established that the Agency is open to considering additional PIP category exemptions and expanding the categories of PIPs that are allowed to self-determine without EPA confirmation of their eligibility exemption.