A recent court ruling means the EPA will likely ban the use of a chemical spray that anti-trail hazelnut farmers cite as a reason they claim a trail is incompatible with their farm practices.

Last month a federal appeals court ordered the EPA to ban the use of the insecticide Chlorpyrifos (aka Lorsban, Dursban, Yuma4E) on food crops, or come up with methods and proof it can be safely used within 60 days. California, Hawaii, and New York have already banned the chemical, which studies show is linked to memory loss, autism, and other disorders. Oregon will ban most uses in 2023 unless a federal ban goes into effect earlier.  One of the chemicals’ main suppliers has already announced it will stop making it due to declining demand.

At least one of the anti-trail farmers has pointed to “application restrictions” for Chlorpyrifos as a reason a trail adjacent to his property would cause significant impacts to his farm practices. However, another local hazelnut farmer has pointed out there were inconsistencies in what farmers were telling the Land Use Board of Appeals about their application rates and how a trail nearby might impact their process.  He went on to say that the application rate that the anti-trail farmer testified he used (in an April 21st, 2020 submission to LUBA) was more than is allowable by federal law! He also points out that Oregon State University recommends several alternatives to this chemical.
And Yamhill County, like many other jurisdictions with public trails in the U.S., offered to shut down the trail while the farmers’ fields, or edges of the farmers’ fields, were being sprayed.

This then begs the question: Are the anti-trail farmers against the trail because they don’t want people to know exactly how much toxic spray they are placing on food crops?