The Agricultural Retailers Association recently filed an amicus brief in support of the Appeal Brief of Bayer CropScience and Nichino America. 

In the brief, ARA argues that the Environmental Protection Agency Administrative Law Judge improperly barred Bayer CropScience and Nichino from presenting substantive evidence challenging the EPA's cancellation determination and existing stocks provisions, while excusing EPA from any obligations to provide transparency or opportunity for review of regulatory actions affecting numerous stakeholders' rights and interests, including the members of the ARA and their customers.

Unless the judge's rulings are reversed and EPA's cancellation and existing stocks determinations are rejected, not only will flubendiamide be cancelled based upon a scientifically unsound risk-benefit determination, but EPA will be enabled to shield additional, future pesticide cancellation determinations from independent scientific, administrative, or judicial review, depriving ARA member companies of the ability to meet the needs of their customers for effective and reliable pesticide products.

ARA is further concerned that the judge's rulings, if permitted to stand, will enable EPA to issue prohibitive existing stocks determinations without (1) seeking any input from retailers and distributors, (2) taking into account the economic impact of the determinations on these companies, or (3) providing a means to contest EPA's determinations and avert immediate and significant harm to their businesses. Read the brief...