BROOKLET, Ga. – The EPA announced Oct. 27 the approval of new five-year registrations for two dicamba products, and extending the registration of an additional dicamba product.

“With today’s decision, farmers now have the certainty they need to make plans for their 2021 growing season,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “After reviewing substantial amounts of new information, conducting scientific assessments based on the best available science, and carefully considering input from stakeholders we have reached a resolution that is good for our farmers and our environment.”

The decision comes four months after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revoked the EPA’s 2018 approvals for two of the three dicamba products, citing potential health risks to U.S. farmers. 

The new registrations are for XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology and Engenia Herbicide, with Tavium Plus VaporGrip Technology receiving an extension.

Wheeler said these registrations are only for use on dicamba-tolerant (DT) cotton and soybeans, and will expire in 2025, “providing certainty to American agriculture for the upcoming growing season and beyond.”

The new labels include updated restrictions on dicamba, requiring an approved pH-buffering agent (also called a Volatility Reduction Agent or VRA) be tank mixed with OTT dicamba products prior to all applications to control volatility.

In addition, the new labels also require a downwind buffer of 240 feet, and 310 feet in areas where listed “endangered species” are located; prohibiting OTT application of dicamba on soybeans after June 30, and cotton after July 30; and simplifying the label and use directions so that growers can more easily determine when and how to properly apply dicamba.

In a statement, the EPA said the 2020 registration labels also provide new flexibilities for growers and states, giving opportunities for growers to reduce the downwind spray buffer for soybeans through use of certain approved hooded sprayers as an alternative control method. 

The agency said it recognizes and supports the important authority Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 24 gives the states for issuing locally appropriate regulations for pesticide use. 

“If a state wishes to expand the federal OTT uses of dicamba to better meet special local needs, the agency will work with them to support their goals,” the statement read.

“This action was informed by input from state regulators, grower groups, academic researchers, pesticide manufacturers and others,” the statement continued. “The EPA reviewed substantial amounts of new information and conducted assessments based on the best available science, including making Effect Determinations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).”

With this information and input, the EPA concluded these registration actions meet FIFRA registration standards, with these new analyses addressing the concerns expressed in regard to the agency’s 2018 dicamba registrations in the June 2020 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Moreover, the EPA concluded with the control measures now required on labels, these actions either do not affect, or are not likely to adversely affect endangered or threatened species.

Allison Crittenden, American Farm Bureau Federation congressional relations director, said the EPA’s announcement provides U.S. farmers certainty in product availability.

“The announcement this week means that the EPA is reaffirming its commitment to dicamba for the next five years,” she said. “So, ultimately this means farmers have certainty for the next five years that dicamba will be available to them, and they’ll understand clearly the parameters in which to use it.”

However, some environmental groups said the new labels don’t go far enough in reducing dicamba drift.

“Given EPA-approved versions of dicamba have already damaged millions of U.S. acres of crops and natural areas, there’s no reason to trust that the agency got it right this time,” said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “As the judges who tossed out the EPA’s previous approval stated, the agency wrongly dismissed many of dicamba’s proven harms.”

Along with the Center for Food Safety and the Center for Biological Diversity, the National Family Farm Coalition and Pesticide Action Network North America also plan to challenge the EPA’s decision.