By Mary Hightower
University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture 

Fast Facts

  • Rollins to discuss Durnell v. Monsanto during May 20 webinar on pesticide labeling
  • White House issues executive order on glyphosate production
  • States tackle duty-to-warn labels

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — Chances are low, but not zero, that a lawsuit to vacate 2026 registrations allowing use of over-the-top dicamba products in cotton and soybeans might keep farmers from using the herbicide, said Brigit Rollins, staff attorney for the National Agricultural Law Center.  

Meanwhile, another high-profile herbicide — glyphosate — has been the subject of a presidential executive order and upcoming action at the U.S. Supreme Court.  

The Environmental Protection Agency issued new labels for dicamba products on Feb. 6. Two weeks later, the National Family Farm Coalition, Center for Food Safety and Center for Biological Diversity, and the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network filed suit in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco. 

In addition to setting aside the dicamba registrations, the coalition is asking the court to declare that EPA violated the Endangered Species Act as well as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, known as FIFRA, the law that governs registration, distribution, sale and use of pesticides.A headshot of a smiling young woman with long, wavy brown hair, wearing black-rimmed glasses and a small nose stud. She is dressed in a dark blazer over a navy blue floral patterned blouse, set against a neutral, mottled grey and brown background.

“The plaintiff’s opening brief isn’t due until May 11, and EPA’s response brief is due June 10,” Rollins said. “Unless this case is expedited in the relatively near future, I doubt that we’ll see a ruling vacating the labels during the growing season, especially with the new temperature cutoff dates. 

“But you never know,” she said. “Stranger things have happened.”

Glyphosate

The White House issued an executive order on Feb. 18 that invokes the Defense Production Act directing the U.S. Department of Agriculture saying, “to take steps to boost production of phosphorus and glyphosate and work with Secretary of War Hegseth to establish an order of priorities and to ensure that domestic phosphorus and glyphosate production does not face undue regulation.” 

The presidential order said, “ensuring robust domestic elemental phosphorus mining and United States-based production of glyphosate-based herbicides is central to American economic and national security.” The White House noted the importance of phosphorus to semiconductor manufacturing, radar, solar cells and sensors. Phosphorus also is a component of glyphosate manufacturing. 

However, it’s not yet clear how the objectives of the executive order will be accomplished, Rollins said. The outcome of the Supreme Court ruling in one case may affect production of Roundup, a glyphosate herbicide. 

Bayer, the chemical manufacturer that owns Roundup originator Monsanto, has agreed to a proposed $7.25 billion settlement to resolve thousands of active lawsuits alleging that the company failed to warn consumers that the popular herbicide Roundup could cause cancer.  

“If approved by the court, the settlement would resolve not only current lawsuits, but also future claims through a long-term program that would pay out claims over the course of 21 years,” Rollins said. 

To read the full article, click here.

Share: