(660) 886-6976 Wednesday, January 20, 2021  
 
Charts |  Grain |  Livestock |  Futures Markets |  Hay & Feed News |  Options 
 Home
 Central Missouri Agriservice
 Marketplace
 Switchboard
 Weather
 My Website
 Login/Logout
 Calculate Shrink
 CMAS Local Weather
 
- DTN Headline News
Court Rejects EPA Review on Sulfoxaflor
By Todd Neeley
Thursday, January 14, 2021 2:15PM CST

OMAHA (DTN) -- EPA's request to conduct an Endangered Species Act review of the insecticide sulfoxaflor was rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, in a ruling handed down on Tuesday.

The agency was sued in 2019 by the Center for Food Safety and the Center for Biological Diversity for failing to conduct a review.

Sulfoxaflor is used to control piercing and sucking insects such as the sugarcane aphid in sorghum and the tarnished plant bug in cotton. The agency was ordered by a federal court in 2015 to vacate the sulfoxaflor registration because of a lack of data on its effects on bees.

In October 2020, EPA asked the court to allow it to correct acknowledged mistakes in the registration. The plaintiffs in the case objected to the agency's motion.

Part of the EPA motion would have allowed sulfoxaflor to remain in use while the agency conducted the review. The groups opposed the motion because they said in a court document they didn't trust EPA to conduct the review.

In a July 12, 2019, announcement, EPA said it had enough data to show sulfoxaflor is safe for humans and bees and had granted unconditional registration for new uses of sulfoxaflor on the Transform WG and Closer SC labels. The new uses are alfalfa, corn, cacao, grains (millet, oats), pineapple, sorghum, teff, teosinte and tree plantations. The agency also added back cotton, soybeans, citrus, cucurbits and strawberry.

The restrictions on the registrations granted in October 2016 also were removed.

In May 2016, the agency proposed a new label that excluded crops like cotton and sorghum and imposed spraying restrictions designed to minimize pollinators' exposure to the insecticide.

The Ninth Circuit vacated sulfoxaflor's registration in November 2015 because of pollinator concerns. The court cited a lack of data on possible harm to bees as the reason for ordering EPA to pull the registration.

EPA then asked Dow AgroSciences (now Corteva Agriscience) for more data on sulfoxaflor.

Bridgette Readel, market development specialist for Corteva Agriscience, said in a statement following the EPA announcement the approval was much needed.

EPA Assistant Administrator for Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Alexandra Dapolito Dunn said during the announcement the agency relied on raw data from industry studies in reaching the decision.

Sulfoxaflor is safer than other insecticides because it requires fewer applications, Dunn said.

For years, states have petitioned EPA for emergency exemptions to be allowed to use sulfoxaflor.

In 2019 alone, Dunn said the agency has approved 12 state emergency requests for use in cotton and 14 in sorghum.

In making the decision, Dunn said the agency discovered many growers could see crop losses of 50% or higher without having sulfoxaflor available. Growers will still need to follow state regulations on the insecticide, she said.

Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@dtn.com

Follow him on Twitter @toddneeleyDTN


blog iconDTN Blogs & Forums
DTN Market Matters Blog
Editorial Staff
Friday, January 15, 2021 12:19PM CST
Monday, January 11, 2021 11:04AM CST
Friday, January 8, 2021 11:43AM CST
Technically Speaking
Editorial Staff
Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:58AM CST
Monday, January 11, 2021 8:30AM CST
Monday, January 4, 2021 11:56AM CST
Fundamentally Speaking
Joel Karlin
DTN Contributing Analyst
Friday, January 15, 2021 8:28AM CST
Tuesday, January 12, 2021 11:24AM CST
Wednesday, January 6, 2021 11:13AM CST
Minding Ag's Business
Katie Behlinger
Farm Business Editor
Thursday, January 14, 2021 3:36PM CST
Thursday, January 7, 2021 4:16PM CST
Monday, October 26, 2020 3:01PM CST
DTN Ag Weather Forum
Bryce Anderson
DTN Ag Meteorologist and DTN Analyst
Tuesday, January 19, 2021 12:44PM CST
Friday, January 15, 2021 12:17PM CST
Thursday, January 14, 2021 12:46PM CST
DTN Production Blog
Pam Smith
Crops Technology Editor
Monday, January 11, 2021 1:47PM CST
Thursday, December 31, 2020 7:40AM CST
Wednesday, November 18, 2020 7:47AM CST
Harrington's Sort & Cull
John Harrington
DTN Livestock Analyst
Wednesday, January 13, 2021 5:10AM CST
Monday, January 11, 2021 4:39PM CST
Monday, January 4, 2021 4:33PM CST
South America Calling
Editorial Staff
Wednesday, January 13, 2021 12:25PM CST
Friday, January 8, 2021 12:56PM CST
Thursday, December 31, 2020 12:03PM CST
An Urban’s Rural View
Urban Lehner
Editor Emeritus
Tuesday, January 19, 2021 5:14PM CST
Monday, January 11, 2021 11:32AM CST
Monday, January 4, 2021 9:43AM CST
Machinery Chatter
Dan Miller
Progressive Farmer Senior Editor
Friday, January 15, 2021 2:35PM CST
Tuesday, January 5, 2021 12:55PM CST
Wednesday, December 23, 2020 1:45PM CST
Canadian Markets
Cliff Jamieson
Canadian Grains Analyst
Tuesday, January 19, 2021 3:23PM CST
Monday, January 18, 2021 2:52PM CST
Friday, January 15, 2021 3:35PM CST
Editor’s Notebook
Greg D. Horstmeier
DTN Editor-in-Chief
Thursday, December 31, 2020 8:57AM CST
Wednesday, December 2, 2020 12:37PM CST
Friday, September 4, 2020 3:48PM CST
 
Copyright DTN. All rights reserved. Disclaimer.
Powered By DTN