Farm groups weigh in on glyphosate high court case More than 50 agricultural groups have signed a letter to President Joe Biden that expresses “grave concern” over the administration’s legal arguments seek- ing to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to deny review of a case on labeling of a common herbicide. The brief filed by the Justice Department argued that federal law and regulations do not prevent states from imposing their own labeling requirements, even if those labels run counter to federal findings. position that permits states to mislabel glyphosate—or any pesticide—with can- cer warnings despite overwhelming sci- entific evidence that it does not pose a cancer risk,” the letter said. line with federal law. I and other farmers are concerned this new policy will open the floodgate to a patchwork of state la- bels that will undermine grower access to safe, effective pesticides needed to farm productively and sustainably.”
Agricultural groups described the new position expressed by the solicitor gener- al as a stunning reversal from previous, bipartisan administrative policy. The letter was signed by 54 farm groups, including the California Farm Bureau, California Citrus Mutual, California Specialty Crops Council, Western Growers Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation. In a statement, AFBF President Zippy Duvall said, “Farmers utilize sci- ence-backed crop protection tools on their farms to produce safe, nutritious food. Allowing labels that conflict with existing conclusions and EPA studies will add to a greater misunderstanding of the crucial role pesticides play in enabling farmers to grow healthy, affordable food for America’s families.” The groups warned that the new pol- icy would set a precedent that threatens the science-based regulatory process and harm food production. They also encouraged President Biden to consult with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on potential impacts to food security and environmental sustainability. “The Solicitor General’s brief adopts a
The new policy, the groups warned, could impact trade, noting that some countries “resort to protectionist mea- sures, including setting unjustifiable pesti- cide residue limits based on poor science, to limit market access to U.S. goods.” If the Biden administration adopts its own “un- scientific approach to pesticide labeling,” the groups said, it “will only serve to weak- en the position of U.S. trade negotiators and bolster those seeking to use unscien- tific, protectionist policies to prevent U.S. access to foreign markets.” The letter said the policy reversal “de- creases access for farmers and other users to much-needed tools to produce food, fiber, and fuel safely and sustainably, and presents threats to science-based regula- tion and international trade.” An AFBF news release shared state- ments from farmers on the issue. Those weighing in included Brad Doyle, a soy- bean farmer from Arkansas and president of the American Soybean Association. “Federal law is clear that pesticide labels cannot be false or misleading,” Doyle said. “Allowing states to require health warn- ings contrary to decades of sound science is beyond disturbing and obviously not in
Nicole Berg, a Washington wheat farmer who is president of the National Association of Wheat Growers, noted the policy reversal comes as “supplying wheat to the world is more important than ever given the unprecedented times with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.” “Together, Russia and Ukraine make up one-third of the world’s wheat exports, and the disruptions we are seeing will certainly impact food supply,” Berg said. “Aside from the war, U.S. wheat growers are experiencing extreme weather condi- tions threatening the quality of their crops this year; 75% of the winter wheat produc- tion in the U.S. is in a severe drought.” Nate Hultgren, a sugar beet farmer from Minnesota and president of the American Sugarbeet Growers Association, said, “Farmers can’t meet consumers’ food security needs and help address climate change if the safe crop protection products we use and desperately need are under- mined by the states.” He said allowing states “to supersede federal pesticide labeling requirements will create massive uncertainty, confusion and add to significant supply chain disruptions.”
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar filed an amicus brief May 10 that asked the court to reject a petition by Bayer, which seeks to remove cancer-warning requirements for the herbicide glypho- sate. Prelogar’s action marked a reversal of previous Justice Department policy. In their May 23 letter, farm groups asked President Biden to withdraw Prelogar’s filing. “We write to express our grave concern with a recent change in long-standing policy regarding the regulation and label- ing of pesticide products relied upon by farmers and other users,” the letter said. “At a crucial time when American farmers are striving to feed a world threatened by food shortages and insecurity, the likes of which we have not seen in decades, this reversal of policy greatly risks undermin- ing the ability of U.S. agricultural produc- ers to help meet global food needs.” At issue is whether the state of California can require a cancer-warning label for glyphosate when other studies and glob- al regulatory bodies—including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—agree the herbicide is not a carcinogen.
16 Ag Alert June 1, 2022
Powered by FlippingBook