Environmental Groups Want Enlist Registrations Vacated

If the legal challenge succeeds, the federal court decision would result in making the technology unavailable for sale or distribution to U.S. farmers.

Enlist_Judgement.jpg
This is not the first legal challenge to the Enlist system. CFS and its partners previously challenged the EPA’s approval of Enlist Duo in 2014, leading to a 2020 Ninth Circuit ruling that found the EPA’s previous approvals violated FIFRA.
(Farm Journal)

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) and partner groups have filed a motion for summary judgment in federal court to vacate the EPA‘s registrations for Enlist One and Enlist Duo herbicides.

The lawsuit alleges the EPA violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by improperly approving the herbicides, relying on outdated data, and downplaying health and environmental risks.

Farmers use Enlist One and Enlist Duo herbicides, manufactured by Corteva Agriscience, to control tough broadleaf weeds like marestail and waterhemp in corn, cotton and soybean crops.

Enlist One contains 2,4-D choline salt, while Enlist Duo contains 2,4-D, choline salt and glyphosate.

Kristina Sinclair, staff attorney at CFS says in a press release that EPA approved the Enlist products “without performing the rigorous cost-benefit analysis the law demands.”

Another Round Of Legal Challenges

This is not the first legal challenge to the Enlist system. CFS and its partners previously challenged the EPA’s approval of Enlist Duo in 2014, leading to a 2020 Ninth Circuit ruling upholding the registration, keeping the technology available to farmers.

If the federal court would vacate the registrations for the Enlist technology, the products would be unavailable for sale or distribution in the U.S.

Corteva Agriscience has been granted intervener status to the legal challenge. Intervener status in this scenario means a person or group, that is not an original party in the lawsuit, is permitted by the court to become a party to the lawsuit, effectively joining the case to protect their interests.

“We fully stand behind our own as well as the EPA’s stringent review processes, which have affirmed, and reaffirmed, the safety and benefits of our products when used as directed,” a Corteva Agriscience spokesperson told Farm Journal via email.

EPA has until Oct. 20. 2025, to file a response to the litigation.

Corteva will have until early November to file its responses.

Your next read: Corn Ear Drop Before Black Layer Signals Yield Loss Is Ahead

AgWeb-Logo crop
Related Stories
The company says the action is needed to preserve domestic production, but major commodity groups argue the trade case will come at farmers’ expense.
Mike Zuzolo, Global Commodity Analytics, says grains were pressured by a host of factors including weather and fund liquidation.
Legal watchers and industry experts break down what the favorable outcome for Monsanto means for farmers.
Read Next
Incredibly surviving the Civil War, world wars, depressions, epidemics, and every milestone for two centuries, the Taylor gathering may be the oldest reunion on the planet.
Get News Daily
Get Market Alerts
Get News & Markets App