Posted 9/19/2023 12:32 (#10407510 - in reply to #10407155) Subject: RE: Epa, rules.
S Illinois
I agree with the open ended wording with the “Endangered Species Act” legislation. However this isn’t a bureaucrat made “problem” at least from an agricultural point of view. This is the endangered species act being used by environmental groups as the hammer to sue EPA because the courts interpreted this act as intended to protect habit. Prior pesticide registration used a risk/reward calculation as the pesticide, herbicide rodenticide registration act laid out and EPA just sort of left sleeping dogs lie when it came pesticides and ESA interaction .
Now the courts have forced the EPA to go back and use a much more stringent approach as to pesticides effect on habitat. Unfortunately this will take more than just a change of the bureaucrats in EPA. This issue will take legislation or higher court rulings. EPA doesn’t really want to follow the court order any more than farmers want them to do as the work load is outrageous to comply with the court order. Bureaucrats don’t want to work any harder than they have to.
Edit: The most recent Enlist label is one of the herbicides that the EPA is trying to use as a way to comply with the ESA. There is a lot more that label than prior labels. That checklist as mentioned in the article is already being used with Enlist.
Epa, rules.
