Polinators Stewardship Council v. USEPA, No. 13-72346 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThe Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136a(a), prohibits the use or sale of pesticides that lack approval and registration by the EPA. Petitioners, commercial bee keepers and bee keeping organizations, filed suit challenging the EPA’s approval of insecticides containing sulfoxaflor, which initial studies showed were highly toxic to honey bees. The court concluded that the EPA's unconditional approval was not supported by substantial evidence because the EPA's decision to unconditionally register sulfoxaflor was based on flawed and limited data. Accordingly, the court vacated the EPA's registration and remanded.
Court Description: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The panel vacated the Environmental Protection Agency’s unconditional registration of sulfoxaflor, and remanded for the EPA to obtain further studies and data regarding the effects of sulfoxaflor on bees, as required by EPA regulations. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act prohibits the use or sale of pesticides that lack approval and registration by the EPA. Petitioners are commercial bee keepers and bee keeping organizations, and they challenge the EPA’s approval of insecticides containing sulfoxaflor, which initial studies showed were highly toxic to bees. The panel held that because the EPA’s decision to unconditionally register sulfoxaflor was based on flawed and limited data, the EPA’s unconditional approval was not POLLINATOR STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL V. U.S.E.P.A. 3 supported by substantial evidence. The panel vacated the EPA’s unconditional registration because given the precariousness of bee populations, leaving the EPA’s registration of sulfoxaflor in place risked more potential environmental harm than vacating it. Concurring in the judgment, Judge N.R. Smith agreed with the panel’s decision because he could not say the EPA supported its decision with substantial evidence. He wrote separately to ask the EPA to explain the analysis it conducted, the data it reviewed, and how it relied on the data in making its final decision.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.