Lisa Neff, “Farmers, conservationists challenge Trump’s EPA, Monsanto over crop-damaging pesticide,” The Wisconsin Gazette, February 13, 2018.
SUMMARY:
Wisconsin Gazette describes the suit against the EPA and Monsanto, which was initiated by five agricultural and environmental watchdog organizations: the Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Earthjustice, National Family Farm Coalition, and Pesticide Action Network. The lawsuit alleges that many critics warned that dicamba was likely to drift when applied during the hot summer months, but did little to address these concerns, instead bowing to pressure from Monsanto to conditionally approve the new formulations. Court documents also claim that EPA recognized the potential negative impact from dicamba to hundreds of endangered species that would be exposed, but did not follow Endangered Species Act requirements to seek guidance on protective measures from the appropriate federal wildlife agencies. “That the EPA would indulge in this kind of recklessness and junk science to appease Monsanto is shocking,” said Paul Achitoff, attorney with Earthjustice, in a statement. FULL TEXT
Reports on a document review investigation that reveals that Monsanto’s own science played a key role in how the use restrictions for the new dicamba formulations for use with Xtend crops were set. EPA had originally proposed a larger, more comprehensive, all-direction buffer for all of the new dicamba formulations, the first to be approved for post-emergent use over growing crops. Then, Monsanto submitted updated research on dicamba drift that, according to the company, demonstrated little to no volatility. EPA was apparently convinced, since it reduced the buffer to just 110 ft on the downwind side of fields on which the herbicide is applied — a big difference. This story reports that Monsanto research used to justify this was conducted in Georgia and Texas, two states that have had only modest problems with dicamba drift and crop damage, likely due to local weather conditions. FULL TEXT
Kevin Bradley, “July 15 Dicamba injury update. Different Year, same questions,” Integrated Pest Management, University of Missouri, July 19, 2018.
SUMMARY:
latest drift-damage estimates from 2018 have been released by Dr. Kevin Bradley, University of Missouri Division of Plant Sciences. Bradley has been compiling national numbers since the crisis began and is one of the most respected, independent weed scientists trying to help farmers, the ag industry, and regulators find a less costly way to deal with the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds.
Source: University of Missouri
The map above summarizes the latest data. An estimated 1.1 million acres of soybeans alone have already been damaged by drifting dicamba. Illinois, Arkansas, and Missouri are by far the hardest hit by this crisis, now in it’s third year. FULL TEXT
Madelyn Beck, “Federal Suit Alleges Companies Knew Dicamba Would Drift, Monsanto Created Monopoly,” KUNC Radio, August 8, 2018.
SUMMARY:
Describes court documents filed August 2018 on two “master complaints” in the dicamba drift Multi District Litigation (MDL) pending in federal court. The first complaint is a crop damage class action, and the second alleges antitrust violations. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs allege that defendants Monsanto and BASF are “commercializing a product that literally destroys its competition.” FULL TEXT
Merritt Kennedy, “West Texas Vineyards Blasted By Herbicide Drift From Nearby Cotton Fields,” NPR, August 21, 2018.
SUMMARY:
Reports on vineyards in Texas damaged by dicmaba drift from Xtend cotton plantings. Grapes are particularly sensitive to dicamba, and can take years to recover. Radio portion includes interviews with farmers on both sides of the issue. Dicamba injury was recorded on 90-95% of vineyards in some parts of Texas. FULL TEXT
Tom Polansek, “U.S. seed sellers push for limits on Monsanto, BASF weed killer,” Reuters, August 16, 2018.
SUMMARY:
Reports on the 2018 dicamba drift crisis and the decision by two large U.S. seed sellers to urge EPA to ban dicamba use overtop of growing resistant crops. Harry Stine, CEO of Stine Seeds, says : ““I’ve been doing this for 50 years and we’ve never had anything be as damaging as this dicamba situation. In this case, Monsanto made an error.” FULL TEXT
Lorraine Chow, “Top Seed Companies Urge EPA to Limit Dicamba,” EcoWatch, August 17, 2018.
SUMMARY:
Reports on comments by top seed companies in U.S. to EPA urging they ban dicamba use in summer and fall. Includes a statement by Beck’s Hybrids, the largest seed company in the U.S.. FULL TEXT
Larry Steckel, “Dicamba drift problems not an aberration,” Delta Farm Press, August 8, 2018.
SUMMARY:
Veteran Tennessee extension weed scientist Larry Steckel writes about the ongoing drift crisis. He estimates that only 100,000 acres of non-Xtend soybeans remain in the state, and 40% of those are showing injury from dicamba. He stand by efforts of applicators to follow the complicated label instructions, and proposes that volatility and temperature inversions are the cause. FULL TEXT
Kevin Bradley, “July 15 Dicamba injury update. Different Year, same questions,” University of Missouri, Integrated Pest Management online article, July 19, 2018.
SUMMARY:
First update on 2018 dicamba drift damage. Reports 1.1 million acres of soybeans damaged, and 605 total complaints across all crops. FULL TEXT
Adam S. Davis, George B. Frisvold, “Are herbicides a once in a century method of weed control?,” Pest Management Science, 2017, 73:11, DOI: 10.1002/ps.443.
ABSTRACT:
The efficacy of any pesticide is an exhaustible resource that can be depleted over time. For decades, the dominant paradigm – that weed mobility is low relative to insect pests and pathogens, that there is an ample stream of new weed control technologies in the commercial pipeline, and that technology suppliers have sufficient economic incentives and market power to delay resistance – supported a laissez faire approach to herbicide resistance management. Earlier market data bolstered the belief that private incentives and voluntary actions were sufficient to manage resistance. Yet, there has been a steady growth in resistant weeds, while no new commercial herbicide modes of action (MOAs) have been discovered in 30 years. Industry has introduced new herbicide tolerant crops to increase the applicability of older MOAs. Yet, many weed species are already resistant to these compounds. Recent trends suggest a paradigm shift whereby herbicide resistance may impose greater costs to farmers, the environment, and taxpayers than earlier believed. In developed countries, herbicides have been the dominant method of weed control for half a century. Over the next half-century, will widespread resistance to multiple MOAs render herbicides obsolete for many major cropping systems? We suggest it would be prudent to consider the implications of such a low-probability, but high-cost development. FULL TEXT
