A federal judge ruled on Thursday in favor of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation interpretation that supports the agency’s denial of a petition to register pesticide-coated seeds.
“The EPA’s petition denial did not fail to consider relevant evidence,” Illston said. “Lastly, to the extent that the EPA lacks certain data, plaintiffs must challenge these gaps in an alternate proceeding.”
Under federal law, any neonicotinoid pesticide must be registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIRFA).
Seeds coated with these neonicotinoid pesticides are exempt from EPA regulation, which prompted the plaintiffs to argue that the treated seeds should “be subject to FIRFA registration.”
The plaintiffs argued that more than 80 percent of the coating spreads from the seed into the air, soil, and water, polluting the surrounding environment with its toxins.
“Neonicotinoids are taken up into the plant’s circulatory system as the plant grows, permeating leaf, pollen, nectar, and other plant tissues,” the plaintiffs said. “Neonicotinoids also cause paralysis and death to beneficial pollinators, such as bees and butterflies.”
The plaintiffs presented their petition to the EPA in 2017. According to the CFS, the EPA “ignored the petition for years,” which prompted the plaintiffs to sue the federal agency to “compel an answer through settlement.”
The plaintiffs claimed that the EPA’s denial was “arbitrary and capricious” and that the agency exceeded “its statutory authority” in exempting the pesticide-coated seeds from registration.
However, Illston ruled that the EPA’s interpretation takes into account all aspects of the plaintiffs’ concerns, including risks to pollinators and water contamination.
“Thus, the court defers to the agency’s interpretation,” she said.
“With the future of agriculture and entire food webs on the line, it is irresponsible and unlawful that these pesticides will continue to be exempted from registration,” the (CFS) said. “We will be rigorously exploring all our legal options, including an appeal of this decision, as well as other legal actions.”
The EPA didn’t respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment by publication.
Please rewrite this sentence.
Source link