Farms.com Home   News

Cancellation of Chlorpyrifos

By Bryan Jensen
 
Some of you have probably heard or seen popular press articles about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s order ruling that EPA must ban the active ingredient chlorpyrifos which is an active is several insecticides including Lorsban 4E, Lorsban Advanced, Cobalt, Cobalt Advanced and several generic insecticides. At this point it is very early in the process and impossible to tell what the outcome will be and how it affects us.
 
Currently EPA is reviewing the court’s decision and it is unknown how they will respond. EPA could appeal or decide to fully comply. Perhaps it will be something in between. I am sorry but the best thing to do, for now, is to stay tuned. The glass half-full response is that the 60-day cancellation period will get us through the 2018 Wisconsin growing season. We will just have to take a wait and see approach for next year.
 
For the interim, you can continue to use chlorpyrifos according to label directions. Typically, with a cancellation or tolerance revocation there is window of time where existing stocks can be used. I do not know if there will be such a window or how long that window will be open. Stay connected.
 

Trending Video

$400m loss to save $3.8m? The real cost of closing Canada's research farms | Agri cmte, 10 Feb 2026

Video: $400m loss to save $3.8m? The real cost of closing Canada's research farms | Agri cmte, 10 Feb 2026

Officials are forced to defend cutting a historic $3.8 million research farm while the government simultaneously funded an $8.5 million cricket factory that went bankrupt. Is this evidence of an incoherent spending strategy? Watch the full committee clash to see the government's official rationale.

A heated discussion erupts over the logic behind the government's cuts to AAFC research farms in Lacombe, Indian Head, and Quebec City. MPs question why core, decades-old scientific infrastructure is being deemed 'not core' while other, controversial programs were funded. The Deputy Minister is repeatedly pressed for the actual net savings of the decision versus the expense of relocating research programs.