THE SET-UP: If you are unfamiliar with the saga of chlorpyrifos, I recommend this comprehensive NY Times story from December 2024. It’s a case study in the fallacy of EPA “overreach” and “regulations run amok” … two talking points we’re going to hear often as Trump once again floods the EPA, USDA, FDA and Department of Agriculture with corporate shills and industry lobbyists.
Frankly, I was surprised to see the first story when I went on a pesticide news hunt. I would expect EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to have already derailed (“put under review”) his agency’s latest attempt to keep a brain-damaging poison away from some of our food. Some, not all … because a court decision overturned an total ban that was 25 years in the making.
As it stands, the EPA is reopening comments on “revoking tolerances” … in other words, the amount of poison the EPA (and our bodies) is willing to tolerate on an apple or a parsley. Here’s how the EPA explains it:
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), we must modify or revoke any tolerance we determine is unsafe. When a use of a pesticide on food is found to be unsafe, we act to address this problem by both:
modifying or canceling the pesticide registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); and
modifying or revoking the associated pesticide tolerance, which was set under FFDCA.
Unless risk concerns dictate otherwise, we generally move to restrict or forbid sale, distribution, and use of a pesticide under FIFRA before modifying or revoking tolerances.
EPA can cancel a pesticide registration in whole or in part. In some cases, there are risk concerns driving the cancellation. In addition, we can cancel a pesticide registration for reasons unrelated to risk, such as nonpayment of maintenance fees. Registrants can voluntarily cancel pesticide registrations at any time. Tolerances would be revoked:
in the case of risk-related cancellations, all registrations of the pesticide have been canceled or modified; or
for non-risk-related cancellations, no registrations remain for the canceled uses, and the tolerances are not needed for imported foods.
Yeah, maybe I’ve taken you a bit into the weeds on this … but I don’t use Roundup, so I often find myself in the weeds. I’m happy to pull ‘em by hand. It just seems to me that genocide, homicide, suicide, fratricide, pesticide, herbicide and fungicide all have one thing in common … and I err on the side of not cide-ing with glyphosate. - jp
TITLE: EPA reopens public comment on proposal to revoke chlorpyrifos tolerances
https://www.michiganfarmnews.com/epa-reopens-public-comment-on-proposal-rule-to-revoke-chlorpyrifos-tolerances
EXCERPTS: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced plans to reopen the public comment period, which closed Feb. 10, on its proposal to revoke tolerances for chlorpyrifos on all but 11 specific crops.
EPA, which released its latest proposed tolerance rule in December 2024, said it will publish a Federal Register notice reopening the public comment period for an additional 30 days from the date of notice in the Federal Register at docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0431 on regulations.gov.
“EPA will continue to keep the public updated as it evaluates and takes any actions related to chlorpyrifos pesticide use. The registration review process for chlorpyrifos is ongoing,” the agency announced on Monday, adding it plans to issue an amended Proposed Interim Decision (PID) for chlorpyrifos in 2026.
The EPA proposal would revoke food tolerances — or the acceptable amount of residue — for chlorpyrifos on all but 11 crops: alfalfa, apple, asparagus, cherry (tart), citrus, cotton, peach, soybean, strawberry, sugar beets and wheat.
Previously, chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate insecticide, was commonly used on a large variety of crops, including soybeans, fruit and nut trees, vegetables, and other row crops, as well as non-food uses.
At high levels, EPA claims exposure to chlorpyrifos can result in neurological effects such as tremors, fatigue and nausea for exposed farm workers.
EPA’s original 2021 Final Tolerance Rule, which revoked all uses of chlorpyrifos, was challenged by a chlorpyrifos registrant and several grower groups in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. On Nov. 2, 2023, the Eighth Circuit issued a ruling vacating EPA’s final rule and remanding the matter to EPA for further proceedings.
The Eighth Circuit’s decision stated that EPA should have considered modification of tolerances in addition to complete revocation and noted that the Agency had “identified 11 specific candidates” of food and feed crop uses.
Following the Eighth Circuit court decision, EPA issued a Federal Register Notice to amend the Code of Federal Regulations to comply to with the ruling on Feb. 5, 2024
“Since 2022, registrants have requested voluntary cancellation of food/feed uses except for the 11 crops and submitted amended labels reflecting these cancellations and the geographic restrictions on use and application limitations identified in the 2020 PID and 2020 Drinking Water Assessment,” EPA announced.
In December 2024, EPA issued a revised proposed rule to revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos, except for the 11 food and feed crops identified in the Eighth Circuit ruling, including alfalfa, apple, asparagus, cherry (tart), citrus, cotton, peach, soybean, strawberry, sugar beets, and wheat (spring and winter) and are limited to specific states that were assessed in the 2020 PID.
Retaining only the 11 food uses would decrease average annual pounds of chlorpyrifos applied in the U.S. by 70% as compared to historical usage, according to Michal Freedhoff, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
“It should be noted that several states have prohibited the use of chlorpyrifos, including California, Hawaii, New York, Maryland, and Oregon,” EPA added.
“Users should check with their state if there is a question about chlorpyrifos use.”
TITLE: Bayer backs broadened effort to shield popular weedkiller from claims it failed to warn of cancer
https://apnews.com/article/bayer-roundup-glyphosate-pesticide-liability-cancer-7d7885e55e228fae8ed8ec7b207a65b8.
EXCERPTS: A renewed and expanded effort from chemical giant Bayer to shield itself from lawsuits that claim its popular weedkiller Roundup causes cancer brought dozens of protesters to the Iowa Capitol building Monday begging lawmakers to reject it.
The legislation, pending in Iowa and at least seven other states, would protect pesticide companies from claims they failed to warn that their product causes cancer if the product label otherwise complies with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations.
Similar efforts failed during 2024 legislative sessions in Iowa, Missouri and Idaho. But this year, Bayer and a coalition of agricultural groups are doubling down. A broader media campaign is highlighting the importance of glyphosate-based Roundup for American agriculture. And they are getting help from a group that ran a Super Bowl ad in Missouri asserting the legislation is necessary to combat Chinese influence over the U.S. food supply.
Bayer disputes the claims that Roundup causes cancer, but the company has been hit with about 177,000 lawsuits involving the weedkiller and has set aside $16 billion to settle cases. It contends those legal costs are “not sustainable” and is looking for relief from lawmakers concerned about the possibility that Roundup could be pulled from the U.S. market.
For crops including corn, soybeans and cotton, Roundup is designed to work with genetically modified seeds that resist the weedkiller’s deadly effect. It allows farmers to produce more crops while conserving the soil by tilling it less.
“It is the most important product in global agriculture,” Liza Lockwood, Bayer’s medical affairs lead in its crop science division, said during a recent Missouri Senate committee hearing.
Last year, Bayer focused its lobbying efforts on Missouri, Iowa and Idaho — home, respectively, to its North America crop science division, a Roundup manufacturing facility and the phosphate mines from which its key ingredient is derived. Though bills passed at least one chamber in Iowa and Missouri, they ultimately failed in all three states.
This year, legislation providing legal protection against failure-to-warn claims already has passed the North Dakota House without any opposition. Similar bills have cleared initial committees in Iowa, Mississippi and Missouri and are pending in legislative committees in Florida, Oklahoma and Tennessee. A bill failed to get out of a Wyoming committee by a deadline.
Bayer officials said Monday that legislative efforts also are in the works in Georgia, Idaho and the U.S. Congress. A promotional campaign from the Modern Ag Alliance, a coalition that Bayer supports, has targeted an even wider array of states.
New to the cause this year is the Protecting America Initiative, an organization concerned about China’s influence on the U.S. economy and tied to Richard Grenell, President Donald Trump’s envoy for special missions and former acting director of national intelligence. The group ran a television ad Sunday in central Missouri during the Super Bowl urging support for the legislation. It said it has invested six figures to run the 30-second spot more broadly across Missouri and Iowa.
Ads supporting legislation that could limit Bayer’s legal liability have emphasized the importance of its weed-control products to agriculture.
“Farming’s hard,” one Facebook advertisement says. “But it’s a little easier with glyphosate.”
That ad offended Kim Hagemann, a suburban Des Moines resident who showed up to a crowded subcommittee meeting to share her opposition with lawmakers.
“Bayer is right, farming’s hard, but dealing with cancer is even harder,” said Hagemann, a member of one of the groups that organized Monday’s protest.
Though some studies associate Roundup’s key ingredient glyphosate with cancer, the EPA has said it is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed. Yet the numerous lawsuits against Bayer allege glyphosate does cause a cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
One of the many attorneys involved in the lawsuits against Bayer is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s nominee to serve as secretary of Health and Human Services. Though the health agency oversees the Food and Drug Administration, it does not control the EPA and its labeling requirements.
The legislation supported by Bayer would provide a defense against failure-to-warn claims not only for Roundup but for other pesticide products that follow EPA labeling guidelines.
TITLE: Profiling of pesticide industry opponents halted after company practices exposed
https://www.thenewlede.org/2025/02/profiling-of-pesticide-industry-opponents-halted-after-company-practices-exposed/
EXCERPTS: A US company that was secretly profiling hundreds of food and environmental health advocates in a private web portal has halted the operations in the face of widespread backlash after its actions were exposed by The New Lede in collaboration with Lighthouse Reports and other media partners.
The St. Louis, Mo-based company, v-Fluence, is shuttering the service, which it called a “stakeholder wiki”, that featured personal details about more than 500 environmental advocates, scientists, politicians and others seen as opponents of pesticides and genetically modified (GM) crops. Among those targeted was Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Trump’s controversial pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The profiles often provided derogatory information about the industry opponents and included home addresses and phone numbers and details about family members, including children.
The profiles were provided to members of an invite-only web portal where v-Fluence also offered a range of other information to its roster of more than 1,000 members. The membership included staffers of US regulatory and policy agencies, executives from the world’s largest agrochemical companies and their lobbyists, academics and others.
The profiling was part of an effort to downplay pesticide dangers, discredit opponents and undermine international policymaking, according to court records, emails and other documents obtained by the non-profit newsroom Lighthouse Reports. Lighthouse collaborated with The New Lede, The Guardian, Le Monde, Africa Uncensored, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and other international media partners on the September 2024 publication of the investigation.
News of the profiling and the private web portal sparked outrage and threats of litigation by some of the people and organizations profiled.
V-Fluence not only has eliminated the profiling, but also has made “significant staff cuts” in the wake of the public exposure, according to Jay Byrne, the former Monsanto public relations executive who founded and heads v-Fluence. Byrne blamed the company’s struggles on “rising costs from continued litigator and activist harassment of our staff, partners, and clients with threats and misrepresentations…”
He said the articles published about the company’s profiling and private web portal were part of a “smear campaign” which was based on “false and misleading misrepresentations” that were “not supported by any facts or evidence”.
Adding to the company’s troubles, several corporate backers and industry organizations have cancelled contracts with v-Fluence, according a post in a publication for agriculture professionals.
Since its launch in 2001, v-Fluence has worked with the world’s largest pesticide makers and provided self-described services that include “intelligence gathering”, “proprietary data mining” and “risk communications”.
One client of more than 20 years is Syngenta, a Chinese government enterprise-owned company currently being sued by thousands of people in the US and Canada who allege they developed the incurable brain disease Parkinson’s from using Syngenta’s paraquat weed killers. The first US trial is scheduled to get underway in March. Several others are scheduled over the following months.
Byrne and v-Fluence are named as co-defendants in one of the cases against Syngenta. They are accused of helping Syngenta suppress information about risks that the company’s paraquat could cause Parkinson’s disease, and of helping “neutralize” its critics. (Syngenta denies there’s a proven causal link between paraquat and Parkinson’s.) Byrne disputes the allegations in the lawsuit.
v-Fluence, which also had the former Monsanto Co. as a client, secured some funding from the US government as part of a contract with a third party. Public spending records show the US Agency for International Development (USAID) contracted with a separate non-governmental organization that manages a government initiative to promote GM crops in African and Asian nations.
That organization, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), then paid v-Fluence a little more than $400,000 from roughly 2013 through 2019 for services that included counteracting critics of “modern agriculture approaches” in Africa and Asia.
The “private social network portal” set up by v-Fluence was part of the contract, and was supposed to provide, among other things, “tactical support” for efforts to gain acceptance for the GM crops. The company called the platform “Bonus Eventus,” named after the Roman god of agriculture whose name translates to “good outcome”.
A separate contract signed by the US Department of Agriculture in the final months of President Donald Trump’s first term also provided government employees with access to the portal, including the “stakeholder backgrounders” on scientists and activists which v-Fluence says it has now removed.
Wendy Wagner, a law professor at the University of Texas with expertise in the regulation of toxic substances, said there seemed to be little good reason to maintain such a database other than to be used for harassing opponents.
“I’m quite familiar with corporate harassment of scientists who produce unwelcome research, and sometimes this includes dredging up personal information on the scientist to make their work look less credible,” Wagner said. “But I have not encountered the use of larger databases that track personal details of numerous critics of a corporation (including independent scientists and journalists). It is hard to see the relevance of personal details short of use as harassment.”