The EPA's Herbicide Strategy and Its Impact on Agriculture By Brynna Sentel In 1973, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) became law, requiring federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure their actions aligned with ESA's goal of protecting endangered and threatened species. Since then, the EPA has faced criticism for its inadequate regulation of the use of chemicals on the farm, such as the U.S. pesticide policy, resulting in a surge of legal challenges recently. The complexity of ESA compliance stems from the vast number of endangered species (over 1,600) and pesticide ingredients (over 1,000). The challenge is understanding the intersection between these species and pesticides, a process conducted under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for new pesticides before they are registered for use and every 15 years for existing products during the FIFRA reevaluation cycle. “We've lost a number of lawsuits that threaten to pull pesticides off the market entirely if we don't begin adopting protections for endangered species,” says Jake Li, the EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Pesticides Program. “We're trying to get into compliance now quickly, and we're trying to do so at a scale that we've never done before.” The first step toward compliance came in July 2023, when the EPA released a draft Herbicide Strategy with the core concept that farmers would attain “points” by adopting specific practices (e.g. reduced tillage,
cover crops, vegetative filter strips, contour farming, etc.). Use of most herbicides would require a set number of “points” per field – most herbicides could require six or more points to use. It is important to note that most practices earn only one or two points, and no single practice would earn a farmer more than three points for a field. Therefore, most farmers would have to adopt at least two new practices to continue using herbicides as they do currently. One concern many farmers have is if they must implement some of these mitigations that the agency has proposed, they won't produce as much, and the number of farmable acres will decrease. This will eventually affect the average consumer because one would expect food prices to increase over time due to the principles of supply and demand. Although herbicides are extensively used and potentially threaten endangered species, eliminating them would have adverse environmental consequences, given their numerous benefits. “Pesticides are effective in doing what they do,” says Dr. Aaron Hager, Extension Specialist, Weed Science/IPM. “It's a cost-effective strategy with many environmental benefits in reducing soil erosion and soil compaction by reducing the extensive amount of tillage, for example. It's a tool farmers have that enables their crops to achieve their maximum genetic yield potential.”
A PUBLICATION OF THE ILLINOIS SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION
(See EPA's Herbicide Strategy, page 26)
December 2023
25
