EPA moves to reregister banned pesticide dicamba despite court rulings and public outcry
By isabelle // 2025-07-30
Copy
 
  • EPA moves to reregister dicamba despite court bans and widespread crop damage.
  • Critics accuse EPA of industry capture after hiring former soybean lobbyist Kyle Kunkler.
  • Dicamba’s volatility has destroyed millions of acres of crops, orchards, and gardens since 2016.
  • Environmental groups call EPA’s new mitigation measures inadequate, citing corporate influence.
  • Farmers and wildlife refuges face renewed risk as EPA prioritizes agrochemical profits over public health.
The Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is pushing to reregister dicamba, a highly controversial pesticide twice banned by federal courts, for use on genetically engineered soybeans and cotton. The decision comes just weeks after Kyle Kunkler, a former lobbyist for the American Soybean Association (ASA), was installed as deputy assistant administrator for pesticides at the EPA in a move critics say exemplifies blatant industry capture. Despite promises to "Make America Healthy Again," the administration is siding with agrochemical giants Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta, ignoring years of documented crop destruction, legal battles, and warnings from environmental groups.

A pesticide with a dangerous legacy

Dicamba, first introduced in 1967, was rarely used during warm months due to its notorious tendency to drift, volatilize, and damage neighboring crops. That changed in 2016 when Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) and BASF developed genetically engineered (GE) dicamba-resistant crops alongside new dicamba formulations. The result? A disaster for American farmers. Millions of acres of crops, orchards, and gardens were damaged as the herbicide drifted far beyond its intended targets. Courts have twice ruled against the EPA’s approval of dicamba — first in 2020 and again in 2024 — finding the agency had "substantially understated" its risks. Despite this, the EPA recently announced plans to reregister three dicamba-based products, claiming new mitigation measures such as temperature restrictions and drift-reduction agents would "minimize impact to certain species and the environment," according to EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou. But environmental advocates aren’t buying it.

Industry influence at the EPA

The timing of the EPA’s decision has raised eyebrows. Less than a month before the announcement, Kyle Kunkler — a former ASA lobbyist and vocal dicamba advocate — was appointed to a key pesticide oversight role at the EPA. The ASA has long championed dicamba, despite its well-documented destruction of soybean fields. Critics argue Kunkler’s hiring is a clear conflict of interest, signaling the EPA’s surrender to corporate interests. "This is what happens when pesticide oversight is controlled by industry lobbyists," said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Corporate fat cats get their payday and everyone else suffers the consequences." When questioned about Kunkler’s influence, Vaseliou dismissed concerns as "journalism malpractice," insisting the EPA follows federal law in pesticide approvals. But environmental groups aren’t convinced. Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), called Kunkler’s appointment "a stunning reversal" of Trump’s campaign promises to protect children from toxic pesticides.

A betrayal of rural America

Farmers and rural communities have borne the brunt of dicamba’s devastation. Bill Freese, science director at the Center for Food Safety, warned that reapproval would lead to "crops, trees, and home gardens decimated by dicamba drift," with wildlife refuges also at risk. Internal documents reveal that Monsanto and BASF knew their dicamba-resistant crops would cause widespread damage but pushed for approval anyway, even opposing third-party testing that might expose risks. The EPA’s justification? Protecting the $57.6 billion soybean and $21 billion cotton industries from herbicide-resistant weeds. But critics argue the agency is sacrificing public health and environmental integrity for corporate profits. As the EPA’s public comment period runs until August 22, the battle over dicamba has become a litmus test for the administration’s commitment to environmental protection—or lack thereof. With industry lobbyists now calling the shots, rural communities face another season of chemical trespass, while Trump’s "Make America Healthy Again" slogan rings increasingly hollow. Will the EPA listen to the courts, scientists, and farmers, or will they continue bowing to pesticide giants? Sources for this article include: ChildrensHealthDefense.org TheNewLede.org NYTimes.com
Copy