Not all herbicides are created equal – and not all effective herbicides remain on the market. Thus is the problem faced by hundreds of thousands of soybean and other farmers across the country. Farmers need access to multiple products from multiple sources, including 2,4-D.

In testimony to the U.S. International Trade Commission, which conducts investigations on matters involving international trade and industry competitiveness, Caleb Ragland, American Soybean Association president and Kentucky soybean farmer, explained the predicament of he and fellow farmers trying to effectively grow their crops.

“Weeds take vital resources like nutrients, water, and growing space from our crops. If not controlled, they can destroy about 80% of a soybean harvest. That’s why herbicides are essential to maximizing crop health and yields.

Until last year, dicamba was a key herbicide in soybean farming. For perspective, in 2021 it was used on more than 50 million acres of soybeans in the U.S. But in 2024, a federal district court vacated dicamba’s registrations with the Environmental Protection Agency. That unavailability has left a massive gap in the herbicide supply for farmers, which means we need reliable access to herbicides like 2,4-D now more than ever,” Ragland explained.

Ragland’s testimony came during a final hearing hosted by the ITC regarding antidumping and countervailing duties brought against imports of 2,4-D acids from China and India. ASA and the National Corn Growers Association appeared in person to offer testimony opposing the AD/CVD petition and urging the ITC to make a negative determination in the final ruling of the case.

Given dicamba’s unavailability and 2,4-D’s reliable weed control compared to the few alternatives left on the market, demand for 2,4-D herbicides has been growing and is expected to grow even more in the years ahead. That makes access to multiple sources of the herbicide important.

Ragland noted during his testimony that the domestic company at the heart of the investigation “makes good products that help many farmers” and enumerated the positive characteristics of the company’s seed trait genetics, herbicide products, and proprietary 2,4-D choline formulation. However, he questioned the company’s need for trade protection, especially to the detriment of American farmers.

“For soybean farmers, times are already tough. Production costs are nearing record highs. The prices of soybeans have decreased more than 40% in the past three years. Our herbicide options are becoming increasingly limited. Imports of 2,4-D products do not compete at all with Corteva’s 2,4-D choline product that is required by law and by contract to be used with Corteva’s Enlist soybeans—and which have a 60% market share that continues to increase every year. New duties on 2,4-D would make things even harder, further disrupting our access to reliable herbicide tools in our toolbox.”

ASA remains concerned with the rising costs of inputs for U.S. soybean growers. Duties imposed as part of this case could not come at a worse time for farmers, as trade uncertainty and tariffs continue to place financial pressure on U.S. agriculture.

The ITC has the final authority to dismiss this case in its entirety and will make its decision regarding these duties later this month.