On Friday, BASF asked the Ninth Circuit to allow it to intervene in a pesticide lawsuit seeking to review the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of herbicides that use trifludimoxazin to reduce weeds in crops, a chemical that is reportedly 10 times more powerful than dicamba which the same court vacated the registration for last year.
The lawsuit, which was filed in July, argued that the EPA did not consider the environmental harm when approving the pesticide, and claimed specifically that drift from the pesticides could harm endangered animals. Reportedly, neither the petitioners, the Center for Food Safety and Center for Biological Diversity, or the EPA objected to BASF’s intent to intervene.
The company argued that they have a right to be involved in the lawsuit because they produce pesticides that could be impacted by the registration, and own the registrations. The company also claimed that the action could prevent the company from protecting its interests, and that its interests are not represented by any of the parties including the EPA.
The registration is intended to address broadleaf and grass weeds, and was granted on May 25. Two products were registered, Tirexor Herbicide Technical which is a product that is over 99% trivludimoxazin and Tirexor Herbicide which is an end-use product containing the chemical.
“Trifludimoxazin provides growers an important new tool for control of waterhemp and palmer amaranth in crops, including corn and soybean, where PPO-inhibitor-resistant weeds are present,” BASF said in the filing. “Its unique properties provide effective weed control and help manage increasing challenges posed by herbicide-resistant weeds.”
Although BASF wants the court to reject the petitioner’s request for the registrations to be vacated, it said that the defendant also does not represent its interests because the EPA is considering broader objectives in its argument.
BASF is represented by Beveridge & Diamond.