Center for Biological Diversity: EPA Dicamba Approval Lobbyists Lawsuit Seeks Records

• The Center for Biological Diversity is suing the EPA for public records related to the reapproval of dicamba, a controversial pesticide.
• The lawsuit alleges that former industry lobbyists, now EPA officials, influenced the dicamba reapproval process.
• The EPA has delayed producing requested communications for over a year, with some documents reportedly held up by the White House and the EPA administrator’s office.
• Key figures include Kyle Kunkler, a former soybean industry lobbyist leading EPA pesticide policy, and Nancy Beck, a former chemical lobbying executive and top EPA official.
• Dicamba has been declared unlawful by federal courts twice, in 2020 and 2024, raising concerns about its continued approval.

This pesticide regulatory influence lawsuit serves as a critical test of the public's right to know how environmental and health policies are shaped by those in power.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has initiated legal action against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seeking public records related to the reapproval of dicamba, a controversial pesticide. The conservation group alleges that politically appointed officials, who previously worked as industry lobbyists, unduly influenced the decision to reapprove the substance. This lawsuit follows more than a year of delays by the EPA in producing communications pertinent to the pesticide's approval process.

CBD's legal filing demands access to ten specific public records requests concerning EPA communications about dicamba's reapproval, spanning from April 2025 to March 2026. The organization asserts that the EPA has failed to respond to these requests, prompting the lawsuit. Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, emphasized that if no wrongdoing occurred, there should be no reason to withhold public documents.

Dicamba, a pesticide utilized on cotton and soybean plants, has faced significant legal scrutiny, with two federal courts declaring its approval unlawful in both 2020 and 2024. The conservationists' concerns intensified after previously disclosed communications indicated the involvement of certain officials in fast-tracking the dicamba reapproval process. The lawsuit specifically seeks all communications regarding dicamba between Nancy Beck and Kyle Kunkler, from the EPA's proposed reapproval in July 2025 through its final decision in February.

At the heart of the Center for Biological Diversity's complaint are allegations of undue influence by former industry lobbyists now holding key positions within the EPA. Kyle Kunkler, who previously lobbied for the soybean industry, currently leads pesticide policy at the agency. Nancy Beck, a former executive with the American Chemistry Council, a chemical lobbying group, serves as a top official in the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, with Lynn Dekleva, another former Chemistry Council executive, acting as her deputy.

CBD's suspicions were initially raised by communications suggesting an accelerated assessment process for dicamba in March 2025, despite pesticide experts indicating that a thorough evaluation would require more time. Records obtained by the center reveal that Kunkler, while still affiliated with the American Soybean Association, contacted Beck to request a "time-sensitive" meeting on dicamba, which took place within the same week. The American Soybean Association has advocated for more "workable" dicamba regulations since at least 2016.

Months after this interaction, President Donald Trump appointed Kunkler as the deputy assistant administrator for pesticides within the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, serving under Beck. In this role, Kunkler reportedly began reviewing draft assessments for dicamba and participated in meetings discussing the pesticide. Despite these concerns, the EPA stated in July that its ethics officials had already addressed potential conflicts of interest.

The EPA has cited "unusual circumstances" for some of the delays in providing the requested dicamba pesticide reapproval records to the Center for Biological Diversity. While federal regulations allow for an extension of no more than ten additional working days under such circumstances, requiring written notice detailing the reasons and expected dispatch date, the conservation group reports delays extending over a year for some requests.

Further complicating the transparency efforts, the EPA informed CBD that certain responsive documents are being held up for high-level review, with some awaiting clearance from the White House and others from the EPA administrator’s office. Nathan Donley of CBD expressed outrage at this level of political review for what he described as a straightforward request for public information, questioning why the White House would be involved in reviewing documents related to a pesticide approval decision.

Donley criticized the administration for hiring industry lobbyists to oversee decisions with significant public health implications and subsequently concealing their roles in those decisions from the public. This situation highlights a broader concern regarding the accessibility of EPA public records via FOIA, particularly when allegations of pesticide regulatory influence are at play.

This EPA dicamba approval lobbyists lawsuit underscores persistent challenges in obtaining public records from federal agencies, especially when regulatory decisions are scrutinized for potential industry influence. The Center for Biological Diversity EPA lawsuit aims to shed light on how decisions of considerable public health and environmental importance are made, particularly concerning the reapproval of a pesticide with a history of being declared unlawful by federal courts.

The outcome of this case could set important precedents for agency transparency and accountability, particularly regarding the involvement of former lobbyists in regulatory processes. The alleged delays and the involvement of the White House in reviewing routine public information requests raise significant questions about the integrity of federal regulatory oversight. This pesticide regulatory influence lawsuit serves as a critical test of the public's right to know how environmental and health policies are shaped by those in power.

This lawsuit highlights the persistent challenges in obtaining public records from federal agencies regarding regulatory decisions, particularly when allegations of undue influence by former lobbyists are involved. Lawyers and compliance officers should monitor this case for precedents on agency transparency and potential impacts on future pesticide approvals or other regulatory processes.

Source: Original reporting via The Associated Press