Dicamba Returns: Third Time's the Charm (Or Disaster)?

Imagine you're a farmer in Missouri, tending to your peach orchard that's been in your family for three generations. One summer morning in 2017, you notice something wrong. The leaves on your peach trees are curling, cupping, and turning brown at the edges. Within weeks, hundreds of trees are damaged. Your entire crop for the year is ruined.

You're not alone. Across the road, your neighbor's soybean field looks healthy and green. That's because they're growing genetically modified soybeans designed to resist a herbicide called dicamba. But when they sprayed dicamba on their field, it didn't stay there. It drifted through the air, traveling miles to reach your orchard, your neighbor's vegetable garden, and the wildlife refuge down the road.

This scenario played out thousands of times across America between 2016 and 2024. Dicamba drift damaged an estimated 15 million acres of crops in 2018 alone. It destroyed orchards, gardens, and forests. It pitted farmer against farmer. One Arkansas farmer murdered another in a dispute over dicamba damage.

Federal courts banned dicamba twice, in 2020 and 2024, calling the damage "enormous and unprecedented" and the EPA's approval "unlawful." And yet, in February 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency brought dicamba back for a third time, claiming this time would be different.

This is the story of an herbicide that keeps getting banned and keeps coming back, a regulatory saga that reveals deep conflicts between big agriculture, environmental protection, and farming communities. It's about super weeds, genetic modification, corporate profits, and a chemical that refuses to behave.

What Is Dicamba?

Dicamba is an herbicide (weed killer) that's been used in the United States since 1967. It's designed to kill broadleaf weeds while leaving grass-like crops (such as corn, wheat, soybeans, and cotton) unharmed.

For decades, dicamba was used safely as a "pre-emergent" herbicide, meaning farmers applied it to fields in late winter or early spring before planting their crops. At that time of year, when temperatures are cool, dicamba stays where you spray it.

The problem is what happens when you spray dicamba in summer when it's warm. That's when things go very, very wrong.

The Problem: Dicamba Volatilizes and Drifts

Dicamba has a nasty characteristic called volatility. This means it evaporates from liquid into gas, particularly when temperatures rise above 85°F. When dicamba becomes a gas, it drifts. Not just a few feet. Not just to the neighbor's field next door. Dicamba can drift for miles on the wind, settling on whatever plants happen to be downwind.

And dicamba is incredibly effective at what it does. Tiny amounts can cause visible damage to sensitive plants. We're talking parts per billion. A single droplet can damage plants hundreds of feet away.

Plants affected by dicamba show distinctive symptoms:

• Leaves cup or curl

• New growth becomes twisted and distorted

• Leaf veins turn white or yellow

• Plants become stunted

• In severe cases, plants die

These symptoms appear on non-resistant soybeans, tomatoes, grapes, peaches, trees, flowers, basically any broadleaf plant that isn't genetically engineered to tolerate dicamba. Experts have called dicamba drift damage "the worst of any herbicide in the history of U.S. agriculture."

The Super Weed Problem

To understand why anyone would use such a problematic chemical, you need to understand the super weed crisis facing American farmers.

In the mid-1990s, Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) introduced "Roundup Ready" crops, genetically modified soybeans and cotton that could survive being sprayed with glyphosate (Roundup). Farmers loved it. Spray Roundup, kill all the weeds, the crop survives. Simple.

For about 15 years, this worked beautifully. Then weeds started fighting back. Through natural selection, some weed plants survived glyphosate spraying. These survivors reproduced, passing on their resistance. Within a generation, farmers were dealing with "super weeds" that laughed at Roundup.

Palmer amaranth (also called pigweed) became particularly problematic. This weed can grow 2-3 inches per day, reach 8 feet tall, produce 600,000 seeds per plant, and is now resistant to multiple herbicides. It chokes out crops and can physically damage farm equipment.

Farmers needed new options. Chemical companies had an answer: new genetically modified crops that could tolerate dicamba and 2,4-D (another old herbicide), allowing farmers to spray these chemicals "over the top" of growing crops during the summer.

The 2016 Approval: Opening Pandora's Box

In late 2016, the EPA approved dicamba for "over-the-top" use for the first time, allowing farmers to spray dicamba directly on growing soybeans and cotton during the summer months. The companies (Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta) claimed they had developed "low-volatility" formulations that wouldn't drift like old dicamba. They said the new products were safe for use during warm months.

They were wrong. Or at best, overly optimistic.

The Damage Begins (2017-2020)

The 2017 growing season was a disaster. State agriculture departments were flooded with complaints:

• Missouri: over 300 cases of dicamba damage

• Arkansas: 900+ cases

• Tennessee: 500+ cases

• States reported damage to soybeans, gardens, trees, orchards, and more

The 2018 season was worse. An estimated 15 million acres suffered dicamba damage. Peach orchards in multiple states reported catastrophic losses. National wildlife refuges documented damage to native plants and trees. Many farmers felt forced to switch to dicamba-resistant crops just to protect themselves from their neighbors' dicamba applications. If you can't beat it, join it.

Social conflicts erupted. Neighbor against neighbor. Farmer against farmer. In October 2016, an Arkansas farmer shot and killed another farmer during an argument about dicamba drift damage. Environmental groups, specialty crop growers, and organic farmers sued the EPA.

The First Ban (2020)

In June 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the EPA's dicamba registration, ruling that the approval was unlawful.

The court's decision was scathing. It found that the EPA:

• Substantially understated the risks of dicamba

• Made findings that were not supported by evidence

• Failed to acknowledge that "the enormity of crop damage" across the country "dwarfed the agency's optimistic predictions"

• Ignored how dicamba use "would tear the social fabric of farming communities"

The court called the EPA's approval "irresponsible and unlawful." Dicamba was banned. For about four months.

The 2020 Re-Approval

In October 2020, just four months after the court struck it down, the EPA re-approved dicamba with what it called "new measures" to reduce drift:

• Stricter application timing restrictions

• Lower application rates

• Larger buffer zones around sensitive areas

• Mandatory training for applicators

• Specific tank-mix requirements

The EPA claimed these restrictions would solve the drift problem. Environmental groups and affected farmers were skeptical. They sued again.

The Continued Damage (2021-2024)

The new restrictions didn't work.

A 2021 EPA Inspector General investigation found that the original 2016 dicamba approval had excluded important scientific evidence showing drift risks. The approval had been rushed during the first Trump administration. A 2021 EPA report admitted that the restrictions had "failed" and dicamba was continuing to cause "massive drift damage to crops and natural areas."

States kept receiving complaints. Farmers kept reporting damage. Trees kept dying. The social fabric kept tearing.

The Second Ban (February 2024)

On February 6, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona vacated the 2020 dicamba registration again. This time, the court found the EPA had violated procedural requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

Specifically:

• The EPA approved the wrong type of label for the pesticides

• The agency failed to hold a required public comment period

• The EPA didn't consult with victims of dicamba drift or other stakeholders

Dicamba was banned. Again. Farmers who had already purchased dicamba for the 2024 season were given limited permission to use existing stocks, but no new sales were allowed.

The 2026 Re-Approval: Third Time's the Charm?

In February 2026, the EPA brought dicamba back. Again.

This time, the EPA claims it has "the strongest protections in agency history" for dicamba use. The new restrictions include:

Temperature cutoffs: No spraying when temperatures are above 95°F (this is new; previous rules used calendar cutoff dates instead).

Increased drift reduction agents: When temperatures are above 75°F, applicators must use higher amounts of drift reduction agents that supposedly help keep the spray from volatilizing.

Limited applications: Only two applications per year maximum (previously it was three).

Mandatory tank mixing: Dicamba must be mixed with EPA-approved pH-buffering agents and drift-reduction agents.

Endangered species protections: Additional measures to protect endangered plants and animals (though critics say these are vague).

Conservation measures: Requirements to reduce runoff and erosion.

Importantly, this is proposed as an "unconditional registration" rather than the conditional registrations granted previously.

This means the EPA considers the approval more permanent.

Did the Formula Change?

This is a crucial question, and the answer is: No, the chemical formulation has not changed. The dicamba products being re-approved (XtendiMax from Bayer, Engenia from BASF, and Tavium from Syngenta) are the same "low-volatility" formulations that were approved in 2016 and caused all the problems.

What has changed is the label, meaning the instructions for how and when the products can be applied. The restrictions on the label are tighter, but the chemical itself is identical. This is why critics are skeptical.

If the chemical formulation that caused massive drift damage for eight years hasn't changed, why would anyone expect different results just because the label has new restrictions?

Is It Safe?

This depends entirely on who you ask and what you mean by "safe."

The EPA's Position

The EPA's 2026 statement says the dicamba review found "no unreasonable risk to human health and the environment."

The agency argues that:

• Dicamba has been used safely as a pre-emergent herbicide since 1967

• The new label restrictions will prevent the drift problems of the past

• The economic benefits to farmers (weed control) outweigh the risks

• Without dicamba, farmers face "critical challenges" from resistant weeds

Environmental and Health Concerns

Critics point to multiple safety issues:

Drift damage: The fundamental problem hasn't been solved. The same formulations that drifted before are still capable of drifting. Temperature cutoffs might help, but dicamba can still volatilize at temperatures below 95°F.

Human health: Studies have linked dicamba exposure to increased risk of certain cancers. A 2024 study found dicamba "consistently at the top of the list in regions with a high added risk of colon cancer and pancreatic cancer."

Ecological damage: Dicamba doesn't just damage crops. It harms native plants, trees, and entire ecosystems. Wildlife refuges have documented widespread damage.

Aquatic toxicity: Dicamba can contaminate waterways through runoff, potentially harming aquatic ecosystems.

Resistance acceleration: Some scientists warn that widespread dicamba use will simply create dicamba-resistant super weeds, repeating the cycle that made dicamba "necessary" in the first place.

The Reality Check

The track record speaks for itself. Dicamba has been approved with restrictions three times (2016, 2020, 2026). The first two times, it caused massive, documented, widespread damage despite the restrictions. State agriculture departments recorded thousands of formal complaints. An estimated 15 million acres were damaged in 2018 alone. Orchards were destroyed. Trees died. Farmers sued each other and their chemical suppliers. One person was murdered.

Federal courts twice ruled the EPA's approvals were unlawful, citing inadequate risk assessment and failure to acknowledge the damage. Whether dicamba is "safe" when used exactly according to the new label is one question. Whether it will actually be used safely in practice, given the past eight years of evidence, is another question entirely.

Why Does Dicamba Keep Coming Back?

If dicamba causes so much damage and keeps getting struck down by courts, why does it keep getting re-approved?

Several factors are at play:

Economic pressure: Farmers face a real weed problem. Palmer amaranth and other resistant weeds threaten crop yields. Farmers need tools to control them. Agricultural industry groups lobby intensively for dicamba access.

Seed investment: Millions of acres of soybeans and cotton are planted with dicamba-resistant seeds (65 million acres in 2021). Farmers who bought these seeds expect to be able to use dicamba. Without it, their investment in resistant seeds becomes less valuable.

Industry influence: The 2026 approval came under a Trump administration, where former industry lobbyists hold key positions at the EPA. Kyle Kunkler, a former American Soybean Association lobbyist who advocated for dicamba, is now the deputy assistant administrator for pesticides at the EPA.

Regulatory capture: Critics argue the EPA has been "captured" by the industries it's supposed to regulate, prioritizing agricultural chemical companies' profits over environmental protection.

Legal loopholes: Each time courts strike down dicamba, the EPA finds procedural ways to re-approve it. The 2026 approval attempts to address the specific procedural violations courts identified.

What Happens Next?

The 2026 dicamba approval is not final. It's a proposed action with a public comment period that ran through August 2025. The EPA received thousands of comments from farmers, environmental groups, affected landowners, and others. Based on those comments, the EPA will make a final decision. If approved, dicamba would likely be available for the 2026 growing season.

Environmental groups have made clear they will sue again if the EPA finalizes the approval. "We're reviewing the decision and exploring all of our legal options," said George Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety, which successfully sued to ban dicamba twice before.

So the cycle continues. Dicamba gets approved. Damage occurs. Lawsuits are filed. Courts intervene. The EPA tries again with new restrictions. And around it goes.

The Bottom Line

Dicamba is a 60-year-old herbicide that works well when applied in cool weather but causes massive drift damage when sprayed in summer heat. To combat superweeds resistant to Roundup, chemical companies genetically engineered crops to tolerate dicamba and got EPA approval in 2016 to spray it during the growing season.

The result was eight years of unprecedented drift damage affecting millions of acres, destroying orchards and forests, contaminating ecosystems, and tearing apart farming communities.

Federal courts banned dicamba twice (2020 and 2024), calling the damage "enormous and unprecedented" and the EPA's approvals "unlawful." In February 2026, the EPA brought dicamba back with tighter restrictions, claiming the new label requirements will prevent drift.

The chemical formulation hasn't changed, just the rules for how it can be used. Critics say if the same chemical that caused massive problems for eight years hasn't changed, new label restrictions won't fix the fundamental issue of volatility and drift. Supporters say farmers desperately need dicamba to control resistant weeds that threaten their livelihoods, and the new restrictions will work this time.

The truth likely lies somewhere in between. Dicamba probably can be used safely under specific conditions. Whether those conditions can be consistently maintained across millions of acres of American farmland, given the economic pressures farmers face and the history of widespread misuse, is another question entirely.

What's certain is this: dicamba isn't going away quietly. Whether it should go away at all is a question that pits farmer against farmer, rural communities against each other, economic necessity against environmental protection, and corporate interests against independent farmers.

It's a weed killer that became a flashpoint for much bigger questions about American agriculture, regulation, and who decides what risks are acceptable in the food system we all depend on.

Sources

Center for Biological Diversity. (2026). EPA Reapproves Dangerous, Drift-Prone Pesticide Dicamba. Retrieved from https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/epa-reapproves-dangerous-drift-prone-pesticide-dicamba-2026-02-06/

Chemical & Engineering News. (2025). EPA to allow new dicamba herbicides despite 2 court bans. Retrieved from https://cen.acs.org/environment/pesticides/EPA-allow-new-dicamba-herbicides/103/web/2025/07

CropLife. (2024). Will Dicamba Be Available for the 2025 Growing Season? Retrieved from https://www.croplife.com/crop-inputs/will-dicamba-be-available-for-the-2025-growing-season/

National Agricultural Law Center. (2025). The Deal With Dicamba: EPA Proposes Unconditional Registration for Over-the-Top Use. Retrieved from https://nationalaglawcenter.org/the-deal-with-dicamba-epa-proposes-unconditional-registration-for-over-the-top-use/

Newsweek. (2026). EPA Brings Back Twice-Banned Pesticide. Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/epa-brings-back-twice-banned-pesticide-11488634

No-Till Farmer. (2025). Latest EPA Dicamba Ruling Is Good News for No-Tillers. Retrieved from https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/blogs/1-covering-no-till/post/14476-latest-epa-dicamba-ruling-is-good-news-for-no-tillers

Society of Environmental Journalists. (2026). US EPA Reapproves The Controversial Herbicide Dicamba. Retrieved from https://www.sej.org/headlines/us-epa-reapproves-controversial-herbicide-dicamba

The New Lede. (2024). EPA says dicamba will be sprayed this summer despite court ban. Retrieved from https://www.thenewlede.org/2024/02/epa-dicamba-will-be-sprayed-this-summer-despite-court-decision/

The New Lede. (2026). US EPA reapproves the controversial herbicide dicamba. Retrieved from https://www.thenewlede.org/2026/02/us-epa-reapproves-the-controversial-herbicide-dicamba/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). EPA Provides Update on Over-the-Top Uses of Dicamba. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-provides-update-over-top-uses-dicamba