• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Environmental law >WILL REGULATORS CATCH THE DRIFT? NFFC V. EPA AND BREATHING NEW LIFE INTO PESTICIDE REGULATION
【24h】

WILL REGULATORS CATCH THE DRIFT? NFFC V. EPA AND BREATHING NEW LIFE INTO PESTICIDE REGULATION

机译：监管机构会捕获漂移吗？ NFFC V. EPA和呼吸新生的农药监管

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In the past half-century, U.S. agriculture has become dramatically more industrialized, consolidated, and bifurcated between livestock and crop agriculture, resulting in significant negative environmental, health, and socioeconomic effects. One pillar propping up this unsustainable industrial model is heavy reliance on synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, chemical inputs necessary for large monoculture production. In the most recent twenty -first-century version of this ever-entrenching paradigm, pesticide companies sell a seed/pesticide cropping system, comprised of crops genetically engineered (GE) to resist multiple pesticides, allowing "over the top" spraying at new times of the year and in new ways. These crop systems have significantly increased the pesticide load on our foods and into our environment, creating huge externalized environmental and health costs. Pesticides are toxic substances intended to harm or kill. Yet, stakeholders best characterize current federal pesticide regulation under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) not by its rigor but by its weaknesses and loopholes. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), charged with administering FIFRA, increasingly approves new uses and variations of pesticides without fully taking into account the consequences these chemical cocktails have on public health, farmers, and our most imperiled species. This includes conditionally approving pesticides despite lacking vital data showing their safety and limiting the scope of agency review when it is applied. When EPA chooses to bend to the whim of powerful agrochemical corporations instead of truly evaluating the potential risks, environmentalists, farmers, and farmworker groups often turn to the courts to challenge EPA's pesticide approvals. A recent case, National Family Farm Coalition v. EPA (NFFC), 960 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2020), presented these issues in stark relief. Dicamba (3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid) is a broad-spectrum herbicide. Dicamba is an effective weed killer, but its toxicity is not limited to weeds. It can also kill many desirable broadleaf plants, bushes, and trees. And it has a well-known drawback: dicamba is volatile, moving easily off a 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. This changed in 2016: despite scientists and farmers raising significant concerns, EPA conditionally registered new, over-the-top dicamba pesticide spraying as the "next generation" of pesticide-resistant cropping systems. That first-ever such approval led to 20 million more pounds of dicamba sprayed annually, a twenty-three-fold increase, across approximately 50 million acres at new times of the year and in novel ways. EPA's approval created a debacle that agronomists say is unprecedented in the history of U.S. agriculture: the spraying of massive amounts of dicamba resulted in millions of acres of crops, trees, and wild plants damaged by dicamba spray droplets drifting off-field during application; dicamba vapor clouds damaged vast fields from fencerow to fencerow; dicamba-laced water ran off sprayed fields; and even rainfall was contaminated in areas of intensive use. Millions of acres of off-field dicamba drift and runoff resulted in widespread destruction of crops, economic losses, social upheaval to rural communities, and harm to endangered species and other wildlife. Environmentalists and farmers challenged the approval decision in 2016. After four years of litigation, in summer 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a detailed fifty-six-page opinion carefully analyzing the voluminous record evidence and holding that EPA violated FIFRA in no less than six ways, grounds upon which the Court then completely vacated the registration as unlawfully issued. The Court concluded that EPA violated FIFRA by substantially underestimating several important risks and costs, including the amount of dicamba sprayed, the number of injury reports, and the amount and costs of crop damage. The Court also held that EPA completely failed to consider and account for several other costs, such as economic losses ensuing from anti-competitive, monopolistic effects of the registrations, as well as the social costs of strife and dissension in farming communities triggered by rampant off-target dicamba damage to neighbors' crops. Finally, the Court held that EPA violated FIFRA by predicating its core conclusion that its approval would have no adverse economic and environmental effects on mitigation measures-in the form of weather-related use restrictions-that substantial record evidence demonstrated were so extreme that farmers could not both follow the mitigation measures and have any hope of controlling weeds. EPA failed to consider and analyze whether following those dire
机译：在过去的半个世纪中，美国农业大大变得越来越多的工业化，巩固和分散，牲畜和作物农业之间，导致了较大的负面环境，健康和社会经济效果。一个支柱提出这种不可持续的工业模式是依赖于合成农药和肥料，大型单一栽培生产所需的化学输入。在最近的二十二十世纪版本的这种不断侵犯的范式范式中，农药公司出售种子/农药种植系统，包括作物转基因（GE）来抵抗多种农药，允许在新时代的“顶部”喷涂一年和新的方式。这些作物系统显着增加了我们食物和环境的农药负荷，造成了巨大的外部环境和健康成本。杀虫剂旨在伤害或杀害的有毒物质。然而，利益相关者最能表征目前在联邦杀虫剂，杀菌剂和鼠李肽（FIFRA）下的目前的联邦农药监管，而不是其严谨性，而是通过其弱点和漏洞。未经使用这些化学鸡尾酒对公共卫生，农民和我们最危险的物种的后果，我们越来越多地批准杀虫剂的新用途和杀虫剂的新用途和杀虫剂的变化。这包括有条件地批准农药，尽管缺乏重要数据，表明其安全性并限制了应用时的机构审查范围。当EPA选择弯曲到强大的农用化学公司的突发困难时，而不是真正评估潜在的风险，环保主义者，农民和农家群体经常转向法院挑战EPA的农药批准。最近的一个案例，国家家庭农场联盟v。环保署（NFFC），960 F.3D 1120（第9个Cir。2020），呈现出鲜明的缓解问题。 Dicamba（3,6-二氯-2-甲氧基苯甲酸）是广谱除草剂。 Dicamba是一种有效的杂草杀手，但它的毒性不仅限于杂草。它还可以杀死许多理想的阔叶植物，灌木丛和树木。它具有一个众所周知的缺点：Dicamba是挥发性的，很容易移开农民喷洒它的领域。由于其毒性及其漂移倾向，Dicamba历史上仅限于清除杂草的田野，其中在种植作物之前或在新种植的作物之前出现之前。这在2016年发生了变化：尽管科学家和农民提高了重大关注，但环保署有条件地注册了新的，过度的Dicamba农药喷洒为“下一代”的农药耐药种植系统。第一次这样的批准导致了2000万磅的Dicamba每年喷洒，在一年中的新时代和新的方式增加了大约5000万英亩。 EPA的批准创造了一个崩溃，农艺学家说，美国农业的历史上是前所未有的：喷洒大量的Dicamba导致数百万英亩的作物，树木和野生植物受到Dicamba喷雾液滴在应用过程中漂移的偏离场地损坏的作物; Dicamba蒸气云从Fencerow到Fencerow损坏了广阔的田野; Dicamba系带水耗尽喷涂的田地;甚至降雨在密集使用领域被污染。数百万英亩的离野Dicamba漂移和径流导致农作物，经济损失，农村社区的社会动荡，对濒危物种和其他野生动物造成广泛的破坏。环保主义者和农民于2016年挑战审批决定。经过四年的诉讼，2020年夏季，美国九巡回赛的上诉法院发布了一个详细的五十六页意见，仔细分析了巨大的记录证据，并将欧盟违反了第五次在不少于六种方面，法院然后将法院完全腾出​​登记，因为非法签发。法院得出结论，EPA通过大幅低估了几种重要风险和成本，包括喷洒的多变，伤害报告数量以及作物损害的金额和成本，侵犯了FICRA。法院还召开，EPA完全未能考虑并考虑其他几项成本，例如在猖獗的猖獗突然引发的农业社区中发生反竞争，垄断影响的经济损失，如反竞争，垄断影响 - 对邻居作物的伤害。最后，法院举行了EPA通过追溯其核心结论，即其批准将对缓解措施没有不利的经济和环境影响 - 以与天气相关的使用限制的形式 - 这是农民所表明的大量记录证据是如此极端两者都遵循缓解措施，并有任何希望控制杂草。 EPA未能考虑和分析是否遵循这些可怕

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号