Newly disclosed internal documents reveal the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency permitted pharmaceutical and agricultural giant Bayer to effectively choose its own regulatory constraints for dicamba, a highly contentious herbicide linked to widespread crop damage and health concerns. The revelations, emerging through litigation, expose an extraordinary level of industry influence in the formulation of federal pesticide policy.
An Unprecedented Regulatory Exchange
The documents, obtained during ongoing legal proceedings, show a remarkable process in which the EPA actively solicited Bayer’s preferences regarding mitigation measures designed to limit dicamba’s volatility and potential for runoff. Rather than independently determining appropriate safeguards, the agency presented Bayer with a range of options—from more stringent to more permissive—and invited the company to select its preferred path.
One internal EPA presentation concluded with a slide explicitly asking: “Which mitigation option to go forward with?” This direct solicitation of industry input represents a significant departure from standard regulatory practice, where agencies typically develop proposed rules before opening them for public comment.
Bayer’s Choices and the Resulting Rule
Bayer opted for the least restrictive option on one key regulation and selected a moderate approach on another, according to the documents. The company also secured an additional change it had requested that was not originally on the table. These selections were subsequently incorporated into a proposed federal rule governing dicamba’s use.
Dicamba has been at the centre of intense controversy since its initial approval in 2016. The herbicide is notorious for its tendency to drift beyond target areas, damaging soybeans, cotton, and other crops planted in non-resistant varieties. Despite court orders mandating its removal from the market due to drift-related harm, the EPA has repeatedly re-approved the chemical.
Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the documented interaction as crossing a fundamental line. “The EPA is allowing Bayer to choose its preferred measures to limit dicamba’s damage as if it was ordering up a late-night dinner à la carte,” he remarked. “It becomes troublesome when the EPA allows them to regulate themselves by choosing the mitigations.”
Health and Environmental Concerns
Dicamba has been associated with serious health risks, including liver cancer and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Since its reintroduction, drift from dicamba applications has damaged millions of acres of farmland across the United States, affecting orchards, vegetable farms, home gardens, native plant communities, and wildlife refuges.
Agricultural experts have identified dicamba drift damage as the most severe herbicide-related destruction in the history of U.S. farming. Yet the current regulatory framework provides fewer protections against drift than previous approvals, according to the lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Food Safety.
Industry Influence Under Scrutiny
The disclosure comes amid growing criticism of the EPA’s leadership composition. The agency’s top four toxics office positions are currently held by individuals with strong ties to the chemical industry, including Kyle Kunkler, a former pesticide industry lobbyist now serving as deputy assistant administrator overseeing the pesticides programme.
In response to inquiries, an EPA spokesperson defended the agency’s approach. “Make no mistake: this is not a compliance failure; it is the regulatory system working exactly as intended,” the spokesperson stated. They emphasised that while companies are permitted to submit mitigation proposals, the EPA independently develops its own recommendations and ultimately makes final decisions.
However, the documents suggest a more collaborative dynamic than the official statement implies. During a May 2025 meeting, the EPA presented Bayer with two volatility mitigation options: a stricter measure prohibiting applications above 85°F, and a more lenient alternative allowing spraying up to 95°F if treated acreage was reduced. Bayer chose the latter.
For runoff prevention, the EPA offered three levels of protection. After reviewing these options, Bayer submitted its preferences via email eight days later, requesting the middle-tier approach along with an additional provision not included in the original proposal. This extra measure would permit full-field dicamba treatments at higher temperatures provided the chemical was not tank-mixed with other substances.
The EPA approved all of Bayer’s requests, incorporating the company’s chosen mitigation strategies into the proposed rulemaking. These decisions were reviewed and endorsed by Nancy Beck, a former chemical industry lobbyist who now heads the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety.
Political and Public Backlash
Kelly Ryerson, an advocate associated with the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, condemned the revelations. “It is now undeniable that the EPA remains fully captured by a crooked collection of pesticide company players who so enthusiastically ignore the substantial losses of farmers and the federal courts who mandated a halt to dicamba use,” Ryerson asserted.
The ongoing litigation continues to examine the extent of industry involvement in EPA decision-making processes, particularly concerning pesticides with documented histories of environmental and public health impacts.
Why it Matters
These disclosures strike at the heart of democratic governance and regulatory integrity. When the very agency tasked with protecting public health and the environment allows corporations to essentially draft their own safety standards, it undermines the foundational principle that regulators serve the public interest rather than private profit. The case of dicamba illustrates how weakened oversight can lead to catastrophic consequences for farmers, rural communities, and ecosystems nationwide. As climate change intensifies pressure on agricultural systems, ensuring robust, independent pesticide regulation becomes ever more critical—not just for crop yields, but for the health of entire communities dependent on safe food production and clean environments.