Five farm groups critical of EPA plan to withdraw Enlist Duo's registration

The American Soybean Association (ASA) has partnered with a coalition of other farm groups and sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy to withdraw the EPA’s request to vacate the registration for Dow’s Enlist Duo herbicide. 

Along with the ASA, the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council and the National Farmers Union helped in the writing and support of the letter.

“U.S. growers have an urgent need for a new mode of action as these regulatory delays have exacerbated the proliferation of hard-to-control weed populations. These delays are necessitating more intense weed control practices that complicate environmental management,” the letter said. “Herbicide tolerant cropping systems allow growers to more efficiently use active ingredients for weed control while providing environmental benefits like reduced tillage that improves soil heath and limits nutrient run-off. Additional herbicide modes of action will help proactively manage weed herbicide resistance.”

The groups reminded the EPA in the letter of the steps already taken to ensure the Enlist family of products was safe for use. Both the EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have reviewed the products and determined Enlist Duo met the new requirements for registration with the EPA.

“Among the many new requirements for registration of Enlist Duo at EPA was an unprecedented review of the potential effects of the product on threatened and endangered species," the letter stated. "After an exhaustive state-by-state review, EPA concluded that use of Enlist Duo in accordance with the product label, which imposed a 30-foot wind directional buffer zone, would have no effect on threatened and endangered species. This review took place on a product that simply combines two herbicides that have each been on the market for decades.”

The letter acknowledges the EPA’s reference of additional and new data, but says there will always be new information available to make a product better and this should not be a reason for an EPA re-evaluation.