A federal court in the Midwest on Nov. 2 overturned the Environmental Protection Agency’s ban on the insecticide chlorpyrifos, a decision the judges concluded was rushed and arbitrary and capricious.

A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the 2021 ban and ordered EPA to reconsider how it will regulate chlorpyrifos, which was as recently as 2017 the most widely used insecticide in the U.S.

EPA reviewing ruling

An EPA spokesman said the agency was reviewing the ruling. The agency has 45 days to request a rehearing by the full court.

Anti-pesticide groups that drove the ban, assisted by a series of favorable rulings by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said they were shocked by the ruling.

Farm groups that sued to overturn the ban looked forward to using chlorpyrifos in 2024 after doing without the insecticide the past two growing seasons.

American Sugarbeet Growers Association President Nate Hultgren said sugarbeet farmers spent more fighting pests and got worse results.

“They had to use multiple pesticides applied multiple times with inadequate effectiveness,” he said in a statement. “This court’s ruling supports science-based decisions.”

In the court’s ruling, Judge David Stras, a Trump appointee, noted the decision was the latest in the long-running battle over chlorpyrifos, which was registered for use on U.S. food crops in 1965.

“Its popularity was unparalleled because it stops harmful insects like caterpillars, beetles and moths in their tracks without damaging crops,” Stras wrote.

The Pesticide Action Network and Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned the EPA to ban chlorpyrifos in 2007, alleging the insecticide was a threat to infants and unborn children.

The EPA resisted banning chlorpyrifos, though the Trump EPA proposed limiting its use to 11 crops in selected states. “This approach, to be sure, would create winners and losers,” Stras wrote.

Unhappy with the EPA’s proposal, environmental groups went back to the 9th Circuit Court, which gave the EPA two months to either ban chlorpyrifos on all food crops or limit its uses.

Stras described the 9th Circuit’s order as an “ultimatum accompanied by a 60-day fuse.”

‘EPA all but gave up’

“Given the time constraints, the EPA all but gave up,” the judge wrote.

The EPA had acknowledged chlorpyrifos could be used safely on some combination of crops, but ruled out that option when confronted by the court’s deadline, according to Stras.

“Pressed for time, the EPA concluded it had only one real option: revoke all tolerances and ban chlorpyrifos,” Stras wrote.

“The EPA had to act quickly. But a short deadline is no excuse for zeroing in on a single solution to the exclusion to others,” he wrote.

“The difficulty of picking ‘winners and losers’ also was no reason to ignore its own safety data,” Stras stated.

Earthjustice attorney Patti Goldman said in a statement that the EPA should again revoke all uses of chlorpyrifos on food.

“We are profoundly saddened by the 8th Circuit’s decision to send the chlorpyrifos ban back to the EPA to review, which will subject farmworkers and children to this extremely harmful pesticide yet again,” she said.

Judges Lavenski Smith and Raymond Gruender, both appointed by President George W. Bush, concurred with the decision.