On June 8, 2022, plaintiffs in Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al. moved for leave to file a Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint. As set forth in their memorandum in support of the motion, Plaintiffs filed their action in December 2020 challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to approve “new use registrations” for dicamba, which the Proposed Complaint describes as “a broad-spectrum herbicide.”
The four plaintiffs seek relief under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The plaintiffs include the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC); Center For Biological Diversity; Pesticide Action Network North America; and Center for Food Safety, each alleged to be a nonprofit organization. The NFFC allegedly “serves as a national link for a coalition of family farm and rural groups on the challenges facing family farms and rural communities.” The other three plaintiffs are said to be involved in various aspects of environmental concern, including the use of pesticides.
The defendants are the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Edward Messina, in his official capacity as “the Director of Office of Pesticide Programs of EPA”; and Michael S. Regan in his official capacity as “the acting Administrator and Deputy Administrator of EPA.”
The Proposed Complaint contains allegations regarding the history of the use of dicamba and related litigation between the Plaintiffs and the EPA. According to Plaintiffs, “It [dicamda] is an effective weed-killer, but its toxicity is not limited to weeds. It can also kill desirable broadleaf plants, bushes and trees.” Moreover, “It also has a well-known drawback: dicamba is volatile, moving off field on which a farmer has sprayed it… As a result of its toxicity and its tendency to drift, dicamba has historically been limited to clearing fields of weeds, either before crops were planted or before newly planted crops emerged.”
Plaintiffs allege that a massive increase in the use of dicamba began in 2016 when Monsanto produced genetically engineered soybean and cotton plants to be resistant to dicamba. This allegedly led to expanded EPA approvals of dicamba’s use beginning during the 2017 growing season and litigation by Plaintiffs in response to various EPA approvals, including two suits prior to the filing of this 2020 litigation. The Proposed Complaint adds allegations regarding the EPA’s most recent regulatory decisions and details further harm caused by dicamba.
Alleging multiple procedural and substantive failures by the EPA to comply with applicable law and resulting environmental degradation,] Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief voiding prior regulatory actions and compelling appropriate legal compliance. Perhaps most significantly, Plaintiffs request the Court to “Prohibit any continued use of existing, already sold pesticide products ]under the now-vacated registrations.”
Plaintiffs are represented by in-house attorneys at the Center for Food Safety and the Center for Biological Diversity.
