“We are concerned as farmers about rules and regulations coming out of EPA when it comes to herbicides,” Josh Gackle, president of the American Soybean Association (ASA), said during the general session of the 2024 Commodity Classic conference.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently proposed a herbicide strategy designed to bring the agency’s registrations into compliance with the Endangered Species Act.

Courts have consistently ruled that the EPA is not properly evaluating the impact pesticides have on endangered species, and the proposed strategy is the EPA’s attempt to address those concerns.

Gackle said the ASA has no problem with the EPA meeting its legal obligations, but the policy must be something that could be implemented on farms and that is not the case with the proposed strategy.

For example, the strategy calls for farmers to seek guidance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 30 days before applying a pesticide in areas where endangered species reside.

“We don’t know three days ahead of time what we need to be spraying in our fields,” Gackle said during an interview.

“Something like that just doesn’t work.”

A survey conducted by the ASA indicates 80 percent of producers would not comply with the EPA’s proposal and would face “moderate to extreme” costs to become compliant.

“The proposal would likely require billions of dollars for farmers across the country to implement and could prevent some farmers from using certain herbicides entirely,” the ASA said in a news release.

That is why soybean growers were relieved when the EPA announced it is extending the deadline to finalize the strategy by three months to Aug. 30, giving the agency more time to consider feedback from farm groups and others.

“They are taking our input, so that’s a hopeful sign,” said Gackle.

He also praised the agency for its quick action in the dicamba case.

Growers were blindsided by a federal district court in Arizona that vacated the 2020 registrations for a variety of dicamba products used on 50 million acres of U.S. corn and soybeans.

The ruling meant growers couldn’t use millions of dollars worth of product for the 2024 growing season and would have seriously jeopardized yields.

However, the EPA stepped in and ruled that growers can use existing stocks of the product that were packaged, labelled and shipped before the Feb. 6 court ruling.

“We feel like we stopped the bleeding there and saved a lot of families a lot of money,” EPA administrator Michael Regan told reporters during the Commodity Classic, a conference that drew a record 11,500 guests.

U.S. agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack praised his colleague.

“Every time I think I’ve got a tough job, I say to myself, ‘thank God I’m not the EPA administrator,’” he said during his speech to the delegates.

Vilsack said Regan has to deal with interest groups, Congress and courts telling him what to do and when to do it.

Regan said there is a 20-year history of courts telling the EPA what to do, and it creates difficult situations such as the dicamba incident.

“No grower wants to wake up in the middle of a growing season to be told one of the tools in the toolbox is now taken away,” he said.

Gackle noted that the dicamba registrations for 2025 and beyond are now under the microscope.

He anticipates product manufacturers will come up with labels that are more restrictive so they don’t face another legal battle.

Gackle expects final cut-off dates for application of the product may be earlier and buffer zones could be increased.

Brent Cheyne, president of the National Wheat Growers Association, said farmers recently had a big win in a legal battle with California over Proposition 65, which would have banned the use of Roundup in the state.

“After six long years of litigation we prevailed,” he said.

“It was a long and arduous battle and there were times I questioned (if) we would win.”

Cheyne said Roundup makes no-till possible, a practice that builds topsoil, reduces air and water pollution and creates better habitat for wildlife.

He said pesticide regulations need to be based on peer-reviewed science from bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences rather than “hocus pocus science.”

“We have to have our crop inputs protected,” he said.

“People need to realize we’re not just out there spraying for something to do. It costs a lot of money to do it.”

—Sean Pratt writes for the Western Producer.

The post Pesticides under fire in U.S. appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

In a 14-minute, fast-paced video titled “Meet the People Getting Paid to Kill Our Planet,” the film’s subtitle not only names the killers, it convicts them, too: “American agriculture is ravaging the air, soil and water,” and it adds, “But a powerful lobby has cleverly concealed the damage.”

The “powerful lobby,” says the newspaper, is the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), the nation’s largest farm group.

To hear The Times tell it, AFBF is at the centre of Big Ag’s “web of industries” responsible for “churning out at least one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions around the world.”

Well, maybe not, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The U.S. is the world’s second-largest contributor to climate change; China is first. EPA data shows that 25 per cent of all global greenhouse gases derive from “electricity and heat production,” 21 per cent from “industry,” and 24 per cent from “agriculture, forestry, and other land use.”

In the U.S., however, “agriculture,” notes EPA, is responsible for 10 per cent of all greenhouse gases. Whatever number you choose, neither is “at least one-third of… all.”

But The Times video sticks with its figure to then figure that agriculture is a “significant polluter,” responsible, in fact, for annual emissions that are “about the same as 143 million cars,” or one-half of all vehicles in the U.S.

Again, not so, according to EPA data.

The Times points to fat profits as the reason for all ag’s emissions: “Annual profits?” it asks to immediately answer, “About $116 billion.” (All figures U.S. funds.)

If only that were true. But this is farming and ranching, two notoriously feast-or-famine businesses where profits rise and fall faster than the local creek. In 2020, for example, U.S. net farm income was $121 billion; in 2016, it was half that, or $62.3 billion.

Adding legitimacy to The Times video is New Jersey Democrat Cory Booker, a member of the Senate Ag Committee. Booker makes a handful of appearances throughout the video to note – correctly – that any solution to our worsening climate predicament will also require fixing “the American and global food system.”

Quickly, however, that contention is jettisoned for the video’s central theme: “It’s time for you to ditch your view of the farm,” the narrator urges. To drive home the point, an activist attorney appears on camera to say a cow’s gassy “burp” is like a bullet — it “doesn’t last long term but it can have a big impact.”

Finally, we are introduced to the video’s fall guy, Zippy Duvall, the Georgia dairyman who serves as AFBF’s current president. Zippy and his allies are “out to destroy the truth,” “buy influence,” and have “got away with” defeating any regulation of ag-generated methane by labelling – rather cleverly, truth be told – any effort to do so as a “cow tax.”

“That’s the big ag lobby, baby,” the narrator breezily notes, adding a bit later on a different AFBF stand, “Seriously, that is some manure lagoon-sized BS.”

The Times describes the video editorial as an “innovative video journalism commentary.” It’s not; it’s a sloppy slice of half-truths and loose connections presented in a casual, “Yo, bro!” style that generates more derision than discussion.

AFBF thought the snarky editorial so off the mark it didn’t even publicly comment on it. Why would it? Having The Times as an enemy only raises AFBF’s credibility in really red rural America.

Make no mistake, though, AFBF — and Big Ag — can’t do enough climate penance in the coming two generations to make up for the climate sins they’ve committed in just this generation. But it’s not alone. Like Sen. Booker notes, the world won’t fix the wobbling climate unless the world fixes all farming and food from, literally, the ground up.

That means the AFBF, The Times, and you and me.

– The Farm & Food File is published weekly in newspapers throughout the U.S. and Canada.

The post Opinion: Smarm, snarl, and snark appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

That’s the conclusion of the EPA’s office of inspector general (OIG) in its report released May 24.

The EPA’s decision to extend dicamba’s registration was later overturned by a federal Appeals Court.

Why it matters: The Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates pesticides in the United States to ensure public and environmental safety, is supposed to do so based on science, openly and transparently and without political or other types of interference.

While the weed killer is popular with many American farmers trying to control herbicide-tolerant weeds by planting dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybeans, it is also controversial because it sometimes volatilizes and damages nearby crops and vegetation, sparking numerous complaints and lawsuits.

“While division-level management review is part of the typical (EPA’s) operating procedure, (EPA) interviewees said that senior leaders in the (EPA’s) OCSPP’s (Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention) immediate office were more involved in the dicamba decision than in other pesticide registration decisions,” the OIG’s report said. “This led to senior-level changes to, or omissions from scientific documents. For instance, these documents excluded some conclusions initially assessed by staff scientists to address stakeholder risks. We also found that staff felt constrained or muted in sharing their concerns on the dicamba registrations.”

The OIG report notes that, according to the EPA’s Scientific Integrity Policy, the agency’s mission to protect human health and the environment depends upon the integrity of the science. To that end, EPA scientists and managers are expected to “represent agency scientific activities clearly, accurately, honestly, objectively, thoroughly, without political or other interference, and in a timely manner, consistent with their official responsibilities.”

The OIG found that the EPA did not conduct the required internal peer review of scientific documents created to support the dicamba decision.

The former deputy assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, the former deputy assistant administrator for Law and Policy, and former acting principal deputy assistant administrator were more involved in the dicamba decision than in other pesticide registration decisions, the OIG report says. Changes they made “left the decision (on dicamba registration) legally vulnerable, resulting in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacating the 2018 registrations for violating FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) by substantially understating some risks and failing to acknowledge others entirely,” the OIG report says.

The OIG recommended that the EPA’s assistant administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention:

• Require senior managers or policy-makers to document changes to scientific opinions, analyses, and conclusions in interim and final pesticide registration decisions, as well as the basis for changes.
• Require an assistant administrator-level verification statement that Scientific Integrity Policy requirements were reviewed and adhered to during pesticide registration decisions involving the immediate office.
• Annually conduct and document training for all staff, senior managers and policy-makers to affirm the office’s commitment to the Scientific Integrity Policy and principles and to promote a culture of scientific integrity.

Two recommendations are resolved with corrective actions pending, and one recommendation is unresolved, the OIG report said.

The post Management interference flagged in Environmental Protection Agency’s dicamba decision appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

That spells uncertainty for a handful of independent refiners that secured lucrative waivers from the Trump administration, and could fire up prices for the biofuel blending credits those facilities need to comply with the nation’s biofuel law.

“The potential ramifications are huge,” said James Stock, an economist and professor at Harvard University who has researched biofuel policy.

Under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard, oil refineries are required to blend billions of gallons of biofuels such as ethanol into their fuel or buy credits from those that do. The EPA can waive those obligations if they prove compliance would cause them financial distress.

The biofuel industry has been incensed by a near quadrupling of waivers granted by the Trump administration, saying it is undermining demand for corn-based ethanol. The oil industry argues the waivers are needed to protect refining jobs, and says the waivers do not affect actual ethanol usage.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on Jan. 24 vacated three biofuel waivers the EPA granted in 2017 to two small refineries owned by HollyFrontier and one by CVR Energy, which is controlled by Trump ally and billionaire investor Carl Icahn.

Fuel prices

According to the court’s decision, the EPA overstepped its authority to grant the waivers because the refineries had not received exemptions in the previous year. The court said the RFS is worded in such a way that any exemption granted to a small refinery after 2010 must take the form of an “extension.”

It also noted research showing oil refineries are able to pass the costs of complying with the RFS to consumers by raising fuel prices, suggesting the waivers were not needed to help the oil refineries financially.

Officials at HollyFrontier and CVR were not immediately available to comment. EPA spokesman Michael Abboud said the agency is reviewing the decision.

A coalition of biofuel industry groups had challenged the three exemptions, bringing the suit. Those groups hope the court decision can eventually be applied to other waivers because the issues in question apply more broadly, said Geoff Cooper, president of the Renewable Fuels Association industry group.

According to EPA data, the agency granted seven biofuel waivers in 2015. That number rose to 35 in 2017 — meaning 28 waivers were given without having been given in a previous year. The EPA does not name the refineries that receive the waivers, arguing the information is confidential, but Reuters has reported that some have gone to small facilities owned by large companies such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron Corp.

Harvard’s Stock said the case threatens to hit small oil refineries hard if it means the waivers will be rescinded and they must comply with the RFS.

“All of a sudden there would be vast amounts of past obligations due, combined with the prospect of very limited (waivers) going forward,” he said.

Prices of blending compliance credits, known as Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), are up about 20 per cent since the court decision, to one-month highs.

Ericka Perryman, a spokeswoman for the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers refining industry group, said AFPM was “carefully reviewing the opinion and potential implications.”

The post Ruling casts doubt on dozens of U.S. refinery biofuel waivers appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Now that plant has stopped churning out ethanol and has instead converted to a grain elevator for storage. Hodgen still sells his corn there, but for a fraction of the price.

“We are suffering for demand,” said Hodgen, a 40-year-old father of four.

Hodgen’s troubles reflect the increasing difficulties faced by America’s corn farmers as a meltdown in the ethanol industry hits the corn market – adding strains to farmers already facing poor weather and the U.S. trade war with China.

Some 13 ethanol plants have shut since November 2018, roughly 4.4 per cent of the nation’s capacity, in a decline the biofuel industry blames on the Trump administration’s expanded use of waivers to exempt oil refineries from blending ethanol into gasoline. Several other ethanol plants temporarily reduced production during that time.

The issue could test the Farm Belt’s support for President Donald Trump in next year’s election: farmers who have largely forgiven the administration for the dire impacts of the trade war are less forgiving when it comes to its biofuel policy.

“That was really felt as a betrayal,” Hodgen said.

“All of us knew that China was going to have to be dealt with. It hurt but it needed to be done,” said Jeff Gormong, another Indiana farmer. “The small refinery exemptions are benefiting the petroleum industry at the expense of the ag industry.”

Under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard, oil refiners are required to blend some 15 billion gallons of ethanol into their gasoline every year, but small facilities can be exempted if compliance would hurt them financially.

The Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency, which administers the RFS, has handed out roughly four times more exemptions to small refiners than Obama’s EPA.

That’s been bad news for U.S. farmers, who have become increasingly reliant on the biofuel industry’s demand for corn, the most grown U.S. crop. Ethanol producers took 37.3 per cent of the U.S. corn crop in 2018, more than triple from 2002, according to U.S. Agriculture Department data.

USDA predicts that around 5.375 billion bushels of corn will be needed for ethanol in the 2019-20 marketing year, a drop of 230 million bushels from two years ago when corn used for ethanol peaked at 5.605 billion bushels.

When an ethanol plant shuts, it hurts growers twice: They lose the demand from the plant, and competing grain elevators and processors pay less as the unused grains flood into the market.

That dynamic played out for Hodgen this summer. Ethanol producer POET, a privately held company, announced it was converting its plant in Cloverdale, 28 miles (45 km) from Hodgen’s 6,000-acre farm, from a biofuel plant to a grain elevator, in August.

Before the shutdown, it was offering US$4.09 for a bushel of corn. The price dropped to US$3.59 by early September when the facility completed its transformation to a grain elevator. The ripple effect spread with a nearby processor and river terminal also cutting prices.

For farmers like Hodgen who produce more than half a million bushels of corn a year, the pennies quickly add up. Farmers in areas affected by ethanol plant shutdowns stand to lose millions of dollars.

“Without the ethanol industry there to mop up all this excess corn, we would have a huge problem in the Farm Belt,” he said. “I don’t know what other crop we would shift to because there is a glut of everything else.”

The Renewable Fuels Association, the nation’s biggest biofuel producer group, estimates that — in addition to the difficulties being faced by corn farmers, plant shutdowns have cost about 2,300 jobs.

“Think of the number of trucks that run in and out of an ethanol plant every day and the rail jobs impacted,” RFA president Geoff Cooper said. He added the livestock industry was also feeling the pinch because of a reduced supply of distillers grains, the low-cost byproduct of ethanol production that can be fed to livestock.

Cooper said farmers and ethanol producers will keep a close eye on trade negotiations between the United States and China, as well as the Trump administration’s final ruling on blending requirements for 2020 under the RFS.

“That’s going to be a Judgment Day for farmers and the biofuels industry on whether the administration and the White House truly support our industry and support farmers,” he said.

Hodgen says he still supports Trump. But his father, Abe, thinks Trump’s biofuel policy shows he is out of touch with farmers.

“Ethanol is the biggest damn deal that happened in my lifetime as far as raising corn,” Abe Hodgen, 68, said.

The post How ethanol plant shutdowns deepen pain for U.S. corn farmers appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The EPA is charged with setting biofuel blending requirements for the refining industry as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a more than decade-old regulation that is aimed at helping farmers and reducing U.S. dependence on oil. It also provides waivers to small refining facilities that can prove compliance would cause them financial harm.

RFS and the waiver program, known as the Small Refinery Exemption (SRE) program, have increasingly been at the forefront of a heated political debate between the influential corn and oil lobbies, leaving President Donald Trump struggling to find a balancing act between the two important constituencies as he eyes re-election next year.

The issue has also gained more importance with many 2020 presidential hopefuls looking to secure support in key states such as Iowa, a major ethanol producing state.

Since Trump took office, the EPA has more than quadrupled the number of waivers it has granted, saving the oil industry hundreds of millions of dollars but enraging another key constituency — corn growers — who claim the move threatens demand for their products.

EPA on Friday said it has proposed increasing the volume of biofuels refiners must blend into their fuel annually to 20.04 billion gallons in 2020, up from 19.92 billion gallons in 2019. The proposed mandate included 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuels like ethanol, unchanged from 2019.

Reuters reported the proposed volumes ahead of the announcement in May, citing industry sources.

The EPA also proposed holding the biodiesel mandate at 2.43 billion gallons for 2021, unchanged from 2020. The agency sets biodiesel mandates a year in advance. Corn and ethanol producers have long urged the EPA to lift the figures to make up for the volumes waived under the small refinery hardship program.

The lack of it infuriated biofuel groups and Republican senators from corn state Iowa. “It’s unacceptable that EPA would set biofuel volumes below demand at a time when farmers, biofuels producers and agribusiness owners are forced to shed jobs and close plants,” influential Senator Chuck Grassley said.

“I urge President Trump to compel EPA to reverse course and keep his word to the forgotten Americans who have faithfully stood with him.”

American farmers have been among the most affected by Trump’s trade war with China, which once was a top export market for U.S. agricultural products – although the rural heartland has mostly remained loyal to him.

“EPA appears to be selling out to oil refiners — again — at the expense of rural America,” said Geoff Cooper, president and chief executive of the Renewable Fuels Association.

“Until the EPA reins in the abuse of SREs (small refinery exemptions) and reallocates what has already been lost, billions of gallons of biofuel demand will be destroyed each year as SREs explode around our industry like fireworks above the Washington Monument on the Fourth of July,” said Monte Shaw, executive director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association.

Trump has also been increasingly annoyed with the waiver program, sources told Reuters, and ordered a review of it, after hearing from angry farmers during his Midwest tour last month.

The proposed mandate also includes 5.04 billion gallons of advanced biofuels, such as those made from agricultural wastes, up from 4.92 billion in 2019. As part of the advanced biofuel proposal, the agency set mandates for cellulosic fuel at 540 million gallons.

The deadline for EPA to issue the final rule on blending requirements is Nov. 30.

— Humeyra Pamuk is a Reuters correspondent covering U.S. energy policy from Washington, D.C.

The post U.S. EPA proposes hike in 2020 biofuel mandate appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“There are many ways to promote organic produce without resorting to disparaging the more accessible forms of fruits and veggies that the science has repeatedly shown are safe,” says Teresa Thorne, executive director of the Alliance for Food and Farming (AFF), which represents organic and conventional farmers of fruits and vegetables.

“For example, the AFF has a web page at safefruitsandveggies.com with lots of positive information for consumers about organics,” she adds. “And it is time to stop calling non-organic forms of healthy fruits and veggies ‘dirty’ and perpetuating unfounded safety fears that may negatively impact consumers’ purchasing of both organic and conventional produce,” said Thorne.

Minuscule exposure

Some key studies about produce safety and nutrition include:

• A study specifically examined the risk/benefit of consuming a diet rich in conventionally grown produce and pesticide residue exposure. That study determined that if half of all Americans increased their consumption of a fruit and vegetable by a single serving each day, 20,000 cancer cases could be prevented each year. The study authors concluded that the overwhelming difference between benefit and risk estimates provides confidence that consumers should not be concerned about cancer risks from consuming conventionally grown fruits and vegetables.
• Peer-reviewed research has shown that the author’s “dirty dozen” list recommendation to substitute organic forms of produce for conventional forms did not result in a decrease in consumer risk, because residues are so low on conventionally grown produce, if present at all.
• The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP) and the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) residue sampling program both found that more than 99 per cent of the produce sampled had residues far below Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) safety levels, if present at all. The USDA stated in its report summary: “Based on the PDP data, consumers can feel confident about eating a diet that is rich in fresh fruits and vegetables.”
• An analysis conducted by toxicologists with the University of California’s Personal Chemical Exposure Program found a child could eat hundreds to thousands of servings of a fruit or vegetable in a day and still not have any health effects from residues. For kale, a woman could eat 18,615 servings in a day and a child could consume 7,446 servings.

Thorne adds that there are decades of nutritional studies largely conducted using conventionally grown produce which conclude that a diet rich in fruits and veggies prevents diseases, improves health and increases lifespan.

“Since only one in 10 Americans eat enough fruits and vegetables each day, it is important to promote consumption and support public health efforts to encourage healthier diets instead of creating unnecessary fears about eating non-organic fruits and vegetables, which are wholesome, safe and more affordable,” Thorne says.

For consumers who may still be concerned about residues, the FDA says washing your produce under running tap water often removes or eliminates any residues on organic and conventionally grown produce that may be present.

To learn more about the safety of all fruits and vegetables visit safefruitsandveggies.com.

The post Comment: ‘Dirty dozen’ list of ‘dangerous’ produce questioned appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

In an order on Wednesday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it will again review former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt’s March 2017 refusal to ban chlorpyrifos for use on food crops such as fruits, vegetables and nuts.

Pruitt’s ruling reversed a 2015 Obama administration plan to extend a 2000 ban on the pesticide that had covered most household settings.

The appeals court had, in a 2-1 decision last Aug. 9, directed the EPA to ban chlorpyrifos within 60 days.

It cited the agency’s failure to consider, or debunk, “scientific evidence” associating the pesticide with low birth rates, impaired mental development, attention and behaviour problems, and other damage to children.

Wednesday’s order means an 11-judge appeals court panel will reconsider the case.

Chlorpyrifos has been used commercially in the U.S. and in Canada since 1965. The ingredient remains registered in Canada where it’s sold under the Corteva Agriscience brand Lorsban, among others.

Groups that challenged Pruitt’s ruling included the Natural Resources Defense Council and the United Farm Workers.

“EPA’s own scientists have said for more than two years that chlorpyrifos is harmful, particularly to children,” said Patti Goldman, a lawyer for Earthjustice representing the groups, in a statement. “Any delay to ban this toxic chemical is a tragedy.”

If the Ninth Circuit upholds Pruitt’s original ruling, it will be a win for President Donald Trump, who along with other Republicans has long criticized what is widely viewed as one of the more liberal federal appeals courts.

In seeking a rehearing, the EPA said the appeals court lacked jurisdiction to review Pruitt’s ruling, and otherwise should have simply directed him to reconsider the evidence rather than order a ban.

The EPA is now overseen by acting administrator Andrew Wheeler.

A spokeswoman said the agency is pleased the case will be reheard, and that federal rules allowing the pesticide’s use “can continue, as permitted by state law,” during the appeals process.

Judge Jed Rakoff, who normally sits on the federal district court in Manhattan, wrote the Aug. 9 decision.

Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez dissented, saying the court lacked jurisdiction.

— Jonathan Stempel is a Reuters correspondent covering federal and state courts and regulators from New York.

The post U.S. EPA wins new chance to argue against pesticide ban appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The 2-1 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle overturned former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt’s March 2017 denial of a petition by environmental groups to halt the use of chlorpyrifos on food crops such as fruits, vegetables and nuts.

“This shows that the EPA can’t just ignore the science that this pesticide damages children’s brains,” Marisa Ordonia, a lawyer for Earthjustice, which represented the petitioners, said in an interview. “The Trump administration has to follow the law, as does everyone else.”

Pruitt’s ruling, one of many by the administration to reduce federal regulatory oversight, had reversed a 2015 Obama administration recommendation to extend to food a 2000 ban on chlorpyrifos that covered most household settings.

Writing for the Seattle-based appeals court, Judge Jed Rakoff directed the EPA to ban chlorpyrifos within 60 days, saying the agency failed to counteract “scientific evidence that its residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children.”

Rakoff also faulted the EPA for going against its own 2016 risk assessment for the pesticide, “largely ignoring” and then “temporizing” in its response to the petition, and wrongly declaring that the court had no business deciding the matter.

“If Congress’s statutory mandates are to mean anything, the time has come to put a stop to this patent evasion,” wrote Rakoff, who normally sits on the federal district court in Manhattan.

Wyn Hornbuckle, a U.S. Department of Justice spokesman, said that office is reviewing the decision.

Pruitt’s order was opposed by groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the United Farm Workers, and the attorneys general of New York, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, Washington state and Washington, D.C.

“Today’s decision is a huge win for our children’s health,” New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood said in a statement.

Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez dissented from Thursday’s decision, saying the court lacked jurisdiction, though its discussion of the petition’s merits had “some persuasive value.”

In issuing his order, Pruitt had said the EPA needed to provide “regulatory certainty” to the thousands of American farms that use chlorpyrifos, while protecting people’s health and the environment.

“By reversing the previous administration’s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision making – rather than predetermined results,” Pruitt had said.

EPA spokesman Michael Abboud said on Thursday that “data underlying the court’s assumptions remains inaccessible and has hindered the agency’s ongoing process to fully evaluate the pesticide using the best available transparent science.”

The case is League of United Latin American Citizens et al v New York et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 17-71636.

The post U.S. appeals court orders EPA to ban pesticide said to harm children appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in the letter dated Oct. 19 that the agency will keep renewable fuel volume mandates for next year at or above proposed levels, reversing a previous move to open the door to cuts.

The move marks a big win for the biofuels industry and lawmakers from corn states such as Iowa, Nebraska and Illinois, while dealing a blow to merchant refiners like PBF Energy and Valero Energy who hoped the administration of President Donald Trump would help provide regulatory relief.

The White House issued a statement hours after the Pruitt letter was delivered to lawmakers expressing the president’s support for maintaining the renewable fuel plan.

“President Donald J. Trump promised rural America that he would protect the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), and has never wavered from that promise,” the White House statement said.

Trump’s second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses in early 2016 gave credibility to his candidacy and he defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton in the state in the Nov. 8 election. It was the first time a Republican had won Iowa since George W. Bush in 2004 and provided Trump a key takeaway.

The letter could end uncertainty about the future of the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard that has roiled commodity and energy markets for months. The program, which requires refineries to blend increasing amounts of ethanol and other biofuels into the nation’s fuel supply or buy credits from those who do, appeared on the verge of a massive overhaul.

The most popular form of program credits hit two-month highs on Friday on the EPA news, traders said.

The so-called D6 credits sunk to 68 cents last month as EPA considered cost-cutting measures, but prices have rebounded in recent weeks and approached 90 cents on Friday, traders said (all figures US$).

Pruitt said the EPA would not pursue another idea floated by EPA leadership that would have allowed exported ethanol to be counted toward those volume quotas.

Pruitt also said the EPA did not believe a proposal to shift the biofuels blending obligation away from refiners was appropriate. That plan is backed by representatives of a handful of independent refining companies who have warned the cost of the program will bankrupt plants and cost thousands of jobs.

Those ideas would have eased the burden on some in the refining industry, who have argued that biofuels compete with petroleum, and that the blending responsibility costs them hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

But Midwestern lawmakers, including Republicans Charles Grassley and Joni Ernst, had vocally opposed all those ideas, calling them a betrayal of the administration’s promises to support the corn belt. They were concerned the moves would undercut domestic demand for ethanol, a key industry in the region that has supported corn growers.

“It’s a great day for Iowa and a great day for rural America. Administrator Pruitt should be commended for following through on President Trump’s commitment to biofuels,” Grassley said in a statement.

In the letter, Pruitt said the EPA was prepared to work with Congress to examine the possibility of a waiver that would allow the sale of E15 gasoline, containing 15 per cent ethanol, year-round — something currently not permitted during the summer due to concerns about smog.

Renewable Fuels Association CEO Bob Dinneen said in a response to the letter on Friday morning that the U.S. ethanol industry was “grateful for Administrator Pruitt’s epiphany on the road to the RFS.”

The program disproportionately hurts mid-sized refiners and mom-and-pop gas stations that are the backbone of the nation’s energy infrastructure and needs to reformed, said Greg Blair, a spokesman for the Fueling American Jobs Coalition, a group of merchant refiners formed to seek changes in the program.

“If the administration follows the course set out in Administrator Pruitt’s letter, manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania, Ohio and other states — jobs President Trump promised to protect — will be at risk,” Blair said.

— Jarrett Renshaw is a reporter covering the U.S. energy sector for Reuters in New York City; writing by Richard Valdmanis and Jarrett Renshaw.

The post U.S. EPA abandons changes to biofuel program appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.