Statutes on Agriculture
See the following section to read student briefs on cases that interpret statutes on agriculture.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIRFA) (7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq.)
-
7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5) of FIFRA specifically outlines the requirements for the EPA to unconditionally register a new pesticide. It states that the EPA shall register a pesticide if: (A) its composition is such as to warrant the proposed claims for it; (B) its labeling and other materials comply with the requirements of FIFRA; (C) it will perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; and (D) when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practices, it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. This provision essentially requires the EPA to determine, based on the available data and evidence, that the pesticide will not cause "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment" when used as intended and according to its labeling. This means that "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide" is an unreasonable adverse effect.
References
ARTICLE: ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES, 58 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 821
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), under EPA has the authority to deny the registration of pesticides that might cause "unreasonable adverse effects" on the environment. This article states that "Pollinator Stewardship Council v. EPA, 806 F.3d 520, 523 (9th Cir. 2015)," affirms FIFRA allows the EPA to reject or restrict the use of pesticides to prevent unreasonable environmental damage. This law review also emphasizes the agency's mandate to ensure that the products it approves do not pose significant risks which shows the importance of its role in environmental protection and the enforcement of regulations that safeguard ecological and public health.
ARTICLE: ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES, 57 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 657
The EPA has the authority to deny or cancel the registration of a pesticide if it is determined that the pesticide would cause "unreasonable adverse effects" on the environment. This aligns with the court's findings in Pollinator Stewardship Council v. EPA, where the court noted that FIFRA enables the EPA to deny registration to prevent such adverse effects. The case is used as an example to show the EPA's regulatory authority and the judicial backing for decisions to protect environmental health.
Cases that Interpret Statutes on Agriculture
Case that Interprets FIFRA
-
Link to the case: https://casetext.com/case/pollinator-stewardship-council-v-united-states-epa-3
Link to the United States Code (2023 Edition): https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2023-title7/USCODE-2023-title7-chap6-subchapII
Please note that the following brief was prepared by a student.
Plaintiff: Pollinator Stewardship Council; American Honey Producers Association; National Honey Bee Advisory Board; American Beekeeping Federation; Thomas R. Smith; Bret L. Adee; Jeffery S. Anderson
Defendant: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Bob Perciasepe (in his official capacity as acting administrator of the USEPA); Dow AgroSciences LLC (Respondent-Intervenor)
Procedural History: This case originated from a petition for review filed by the plaintiffs challenging the EPA's approval of insecticides containing sulfoxaflor, a new insecticide that initial studies showed to be highly toxic to honey bees. The case was heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Background: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) prohibits the sale of pesticides that lack approval and registration by the EPA. The EPA may deny an application for registration when necessary to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. In 2010, Dow Agrosciences LLC applied for approval of sulfoxaflor under FIFRA. As part of the registration process, the EPA analyzed studies submitted by Dow using a tiered risk assessment framework to evaluate the potential risk to bees. The EPA's Tier 1 analysis showed that sulfoxaflor exceeded the level of concern for acute toxicity to bees, triggering the need for further testing. The EPA then proceeded to Tier 2, which involved semi-field studies evaluating the effects of sulfoxaflor on bee colonies. However, the EPA found that the Tier 2 studies submitted by Dow had significant limitations and did not conclusively demonstrate the effects of sulfoxaflor on brood development and long-term colony health, particularly at the maximum proposed application rate. Initially, the EPA proposed to conditionally register sulfoxaflor at a reduced application rate and requested additional studies to address the data gaps. However, a few months later, the EPA unconditionally registered sulfoxaflor with certain mitigation measures and a lowered maximum application rate, without obtaining any further studies.
Legal Issue: Did the EPA’s decision to unconditionally register sulfoxaflor reference the statute 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5) to find the pesticide "unreasonable adverse effects.”
Holding: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the EPA's unconditional registration of sulfoxaflor and remanded the case to the EPA because the EPA's decision to unconditionally register sulfoxaflor was not in accordance with the statutory requirements of 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5), as the EPA failed to determine, based on substantial evidence, that sulfoxaflor "will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment."
Reasoning: Under 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5), the EPA can register a new pesticide only if it determines that the pesticide "will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment." The EPA's decision to unconditionally register sulfoxaflor was based on flawed and limited data that did not adequately address the effects of sulfoxaflor on brood development and long-term colony strength of bees. The Tier 2 semi-field studies submitted by Dow had significant limitations, which included use of application rates lower than the maximum proposed rate, short observation periods, and inconclusive data on the effects on brood development and long-term colony strength. As a result, the EPA acknowledged the insufficiency of the data and initially proposed conditional registration pending additional studies but later granted unconditional registration without obtaining any new data to determine whether sulfoxaflor would cause unreasonable adverse effects on bees. The court rejected the EPA's argument that the inconclusive studies could be used as affirmative proof that sulfoxaflor would not cause unreasonable adverse effects on bees, as required by 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5). Without sufficient data to determine whether sulfoxaflor would cause unreasonable adverse effects on bees, the EPA's decision to unconditionally register sulfoxaflor was not in accordance with the statutory requirements of 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5).