Proposed Rule: Isoxaflutole FDMS Posting Memo Regulations.gov Document ID: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0202-0012" target="_self"><ins>EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0202-0012</ins></a> Comment Period: June 26, 2026 to July 27, 2026 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
View the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/user-notice" target="_self"><ins>terms of participation</ins></a> and <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice" target="_self"><ins>privacy notice</ins></a> for Regulations.gov. All comments made on <a href="http://regulations.gov" target="_self"><ins>regulations.gov</ins></a> action centers will be public comments, so we encourage action-takers not to include personally identifiable information in their messages.
ARE YOU SICK AND TIRED OF THE HYPOCRISY, LIES AND BLATANT GASLIGHTING YET?
Trump’s EPA sent out an absurd email saying the agency, in support of Regenerative Agriculture, is proposing to approve new and expanded uses of two very toxic herbicides—isoxaflutole and topramezone—for over-the-top spraying on GMO cotton.
You can’t make this stuff up.
The EPA says, “These tools help farmers manage economically damaging, herbicide-resistant weeds like Palmer amaranth, and they support regenerative, soil-health practices such as no-till farming — an alternative to intensive tillage that increases runoff and erosion.”
The EPA must truly think Americans are stupid. Regenerative organic farmers prove that no-till farming can be achieved without any pesticides at all. And studies show that pesticides harm soil health by killing the myriad of organisms that contribute to a vibrant soil food web.
Bayer-Monsanto and other chemical corporations have been pushing the notion that no-till farming is only possible by using synthetic pesticides, claiming these pesticides are necessary for regenerative agriculture. It’s complete nonsense.
To ensure its survival, the agrichemical industry is working aggressively to co-opt, redefine, and control the narrative around regenerative agriculture, transforming a movement rooted in reducing chemical dependence into one that preserves heavy use of its toxic pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and genetically engineered seeds.
EPA management, now fully stacked with chemical lobbyists, is using the agency to perpetuate this false narrative. Don’t be fooled.
ISOXAFLUTOLE
Isoxaflutole, considered a PFAS "Forever Chemical” pesticide, is highly toxic and classified by the EPA as a probable human carcinogen. It is also linked to liver damage and developmental effects and breaks down into persistent degradates that can move through the environment and remain toxic to plants and other organisms.
Isoxaflutole is also highly volatile, drift-prone, and can travel far beyond its site of application. Allowing expanded use on genetically engineered isoxaflutole-tolerant cotton will harm neighboring farms (especially organic and non-GMO farms), rural communities, pollinators, native vegetation and trees, and aquatic ecosystems.
Expanding the use of this synthetic herbicide for over-the-top spraying on isoxaflutole-tolerant GMO cotton will increase the use of this chemical by millions of pounds annually.
Regenerative agriculture improves soil health, protects biodiversity, reduces reliance on harmful agricultural chemicals, and improves human health outcomes. Expanding the use of pesticides that are toxic to plants, pose risks to wildlife, and can harm human health bears little resemblance to the widely recognized goals of regenerative agriculture.
We must resoundingly reject the EPA’s plan to expand and increase the new use of this toxic pesticide. EPA’s brand of so-called “regenerative agriculture” is destructive, not regenerative. Let this chemical-lobbyist infested EPA know what you think.
Submit a comment to both regulatory comment dockets today. The pre-written comments are editable so you can make them your own. The public comment deadline is Monday, July 27, 2026 at 11:59PM Eastern.
After submitting your comment for isoxaflutole, <a href="https://mstr.app/3fe60fad-6d29-46a7-8e5f-eec08751e215" target="_blank">GO HERE</a> to submit your comment for topramezone if you haven’t already done so.&nbsp;

TRUMP EPA CLAIMS TO SUPPORT “REGENERATIVE” AGRICULTURE BY APPROVING NEW TOXIC PESTICIDE USE: ISOXAFLUTOLE. HUH?

The EPA should not redefine regenerative agriculture to justify expanding the use of toxic herbicides. Regenerative agriculture is built on restoring soil health, increasing biodiversity, and reducing reliance on synthetic pesticides—not encouraging millions of additional pounds of herbicides to be sprayed over genetically engineered crops.

Isoxaflutole is a probable human carcinogen that can drift far beyond where it is applied, threatening neighboring farms, wildlife habitat, pollinators, and rural communities. This proposal would increase environmental contamination while benefiting only the chemical industry.

Regenerative means the ability to renew, restore, or regrow something, especially after it has been damaged, for example, by synthetic pesticides. Rather than just sustaining or maintaining a current state, regenerative concepts aim to actively heal, revitalize, and improve systems to leave them in a better or more robust condition. The proposal to expand the use of isoxaflutole does exactly the opposite.

Please reject the proposed expansion of isoxaflutole on GMO cotton.

Action REG Federal EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0202-0012 Isoxaflutole

GMO/Toxin Free USA

I strongly oppose EPA's proposal to allow over-the-top spraying of isoxaflutole on genetically engineered cotton. Calling this "regenerative agriculture" is misleading and undermines the meaning of a farming system that is supposed to reduce dependence on toxic agricultural chemicals, improve soil health, and protect biodiversity. The use of toxic, synthetic pesticides is not regenerative in any way, shape or form.

Isoxaflutole is classified by EPA as a probable human carcinogen, is highly volatile and prone to drift, and can move off-site where it threatens neighboring farms, rural communities, pollinators, native vegetation, and waterways. Expanding its use will only increase the amount of this dangerous herbicide released into the environment.

The EPA should reject this proposal and promote truly regenerative farming practices that reduce pesticide use instead of expanding it.

Do not approve isoxaflutole use on GMO cotton

Expanded isoxaflutole use on GMO cotton must not be approved

I urge the EPA to deny this proposal. Approving expanded use of isoxaflutole on herbicide-tolerant GMO cotton is inconsistent with the goals of regenerative agriculture and ignores the well-documented risks associated with this herbicide.

Truly regenerative agriculture focuses on healthier soils, cleaner water, greater biodiversity, and reduced chemical inputs. Expanding the use of a probable human carcinogen that is prone to volatilization, off-target drift and contamination of ground water moves American agriculture in exactly the wrong direction. Neighboring farms, including organic producers, should not bear the burden of increased herbicide drift and contamination.

EPA must reject any definition of regenerative agriculture that promotes the use of toxic, synthetic pesticides. EPA should support real regenerative agriculture. Reject the proposed use of isoxaflutole on GMO cotton and support farming systems that reduce dependence on hazardous pesticides instead of expanding their use.

Expanded use of isoxaflutole is NOT regenerative agriculture

I oppose EPA's proposal to expand the use of isoxaflutole on genetically engineered cotton. Labeling increased herbicide use as "regenerative agriculture" is an attempt to redefine a movement that was created to reduce dependence on synthetic pesticides and protect both people and the environment. Redefining “regenerative agriculture” to promote increased pesticide use for the benefit of agrichemical industry profits is rubbish.

Isoxaflutole poses serious concerns because it is classified as a probable human carcinogen, can persist in the environment, and is prone to drifting beyond treated fields. Increasing its use threatens pollinators, wildlife, native plants, neighboring farms, and rural residents while doing nothing to advance truly regenerative farming.

EPA must stop using the intentionally misleading messaging of corrupt chemical companies, reject this proposal and develop agricultural policies that encourage practices that build healthy soils and reduce toxic pesticide use—not policies that expand it. Regenerative agriculture bears no resemblance to agricultural practices that depend on toxic, synthetic pesticides, synthetic fertilizers and herbicide tolerant genetically engineered seeds. Stop it already.

Stop the nosense. Reject isoxaflutole use on GMO cotton