Listen to the article
The Environmental Protection Agency approved the controversial weed killer dicamba for use on genetically modified soybeans and cotton Friday, despite ongoing concerns about the pesticide’s tendency to drift and damage neighboring crops.
The decision comes after courts blocked similar EPA efforts to reapprove dicamba in both 2020 and earlier this year, highlighting the contentious nature of this agricultural chemical that has divided farmers, regulators, and environmental groups.
EPA officials defended the move by emphasizing dicamba’s importance to farmers battling aggressive weeds that threaten crop yields. The agency stated it has imposed “strong protections and limits” on dicamba’s application to mitigate potential harm.
Dicamba has been used for decades as a herbicide, but its application has expanded significantly in recent years with the development of genetically modified crops resistant to its effects. These engineered soybeans and cotton allow farmers to spray dicamba directly on crops during the growing season, killing weeds without harming the valuable plants.
The agency’s new restrictions include limits on application rates per acre, temperature thresholds prohibiting spraying on hot days when drift is more likely, and mandated buffer zones to protect nearby vegetation. EPA officials maintain that if these guidelines are followed, the chemical can be used safely without threatening human health or the environment.
The American Soybean Association welcomed the decision, noting that clear regulations will help farmers prepare for the upcoming growing season and effectively control destructive weeds that can devastate yields. Soybean and cotton are major cash crops across America’s agricultural heartland, representing billions in economic activity.
However, environmental advocates sharply criticized the EPA’s decision, arguing that expanding dicamba use on these common crops will substantially increase overall application rates and subsequent environmental harm.
Kelly Ryerson, an activist with the Make America Healthy Again movement that has established ties with the Trump administration, expressed disappointment with the ruling. “A top priority of mine was to have the use of dicamba for over-the-top applications permanently discontinued,” she said, adding that “new restrictions on use are not sufficient, and will perpetuate the chemical treadmill where many farmers are trapped.”
Environmental groups point to documented cases where dicamba drift has damaged massive acreages of non-target vegetation, including vegetable farms, orchards, and natural habitats. Critics argue the EPA’s buffer zones have previously proven inadequate to contain the chemical’s movement, particularly under certain weather conditions.
“When push comes to shove, this administration is willing to bend over backward to appease the pesticide industry, regardless of the consequences to public health or the environment,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity.
Health concerns add another dimension to the controversy. A 2020 study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology linked dicamba exposure to increased risks for certain cancers, including liver cancer and a type of leukemia affecting blood and bone marrow. These findings have intensified calls for more stringent regulation or outright bans on the herbicide.
Bayer, one of the primary manufacturers of dicamba products, announced it will now seek individual state approvals following the federal registration decision. The company plans to launch training programs for applicators in the coming weeks to ensure compliance with the new guidelines.
The EPA emphasized that the dicamba decision is not a conflict between the agency and MAHA, but rather reflects its assessment that farmers need access to effective weed management tools while implementing safeguards against unintended consequences.
This reapproval represents the latest chapter in an ongoing regulatory saga surrounding agricultural chemicals, as agencies attempt to balance crop production needs against environmental protection and public health concerns in an increasingly complex agricultural landscape.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
Genetically modified crops have become increasingly common, but the use of powerful herbicides like dicamba raises important questions about sustainability and unintended consequences. I’ll be interested to see how this plays out.
Battling aggressive weeds is a major challenge for farmers, so I understand the appeal of dicamba-resistant crops. However, the potential for drift and damage to other crops is concerning. Hopefully the EPA’s new rules can strike the right balance.
The decision to reapprove dicamba for use on GM crops is sure to be controversial. I hope the EPA’s new rules are effective in protecting the environment and neighboring farms, while still providing a useful tool for farmers.
While dicamba is an important tool for managing weeds, the concerns about its environmental impact are valid. I hope the EPA carefully weighs the pros and cons before making a decision that considers all stakeholders.
Dicamba has been a contentious issue for years, with concerns about drift and damage to neighboring crops. Hopefully the EPA’s new restrictions can help mitigate these risks and provide a balanced solution for farmers.
The approval of dicamba for use on GM crops is a complex issue without easy answers. I appreciate the EPA trying to balance the needs of farmers with environmental protection, but it remains to be seen if their restrictions will be effective.
You raise a good point. The long-term impacts of widespread dicamba use need to be carefully monitored.
This is a complex issue with valid concerns on both sides. I’m curious to see how the restrictions imposed by the EPA play out in practice and whether they are effective in mitigating the risks associated with dicamba.