Bibliography Tag: policy and politics
Tom Polansek, “EPA to allow use of dicamba next year, but with safeguards,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 19, 2017.
SUMMARY:
This story reports on the EPA’s decision to allow dicamba use in 2018, although with yet to be determined additional rules to mitigate damages. The acting chief of the herbicide branch Reuben Baris is quoted that “ensuring the technology is available” is the top priority, but that the agency wants to ensure that it is “used responsibly.” This echoes Monsanto’s argument that the fault lies with applicators and not their product. While a cutoff date similar to the one proposed in Arkansas (April 15) is one of the options considered, it is considered unlikely as it would not achieve EPA’s goal of “maintaining dicamba’s usefulness.” FULL TEXT
Carson Thurman, Preston Lee, Mary Margaret Gay, and John McCants, “Part Two: Dicamba Drift Issues Ensnaring Farmer,” Growing Georgia, August 15, 2017.
SUMMARY:
Summarizes dicamba drift lawsuits thus far. FULL TEXT
Chris Bennett (Bennett, 2017c), “Dicamba Lawsuits Mounting,” AgPro, September 14, 2017.
SUMMARY:
Reports that farmers in over 10 states are now involved in dicamba lawsuits, and “dicamba-related litigation has only just begun.” The core of the cases is that the new dicamba formulations are inherently “incapable of being routinely and safely applied to cotton and soybeans.” Farmers who suffered damage allege they are victims of Monsanto and BASF putting products on the market that are unsafe. A few specific suits include:
- Bader Farms- This Missouri orchard saw dicamba damage to 7,000 peach trees in 2016 and 30,000 in 2017, with costs in the millions. Monsanto and BASF are listed in the complaint. Monsanto claims that Xtendimax is not the culprit herbicide in this case. First filed in November 2016.
- Landers et. al v. Monsanto Company- This suit is spearheaded by Steven and Dee Landers from Missouri but includes farmers from Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Filed in January 2017.
- Bruce Farms Partnership- Six farms in Arkansas file suit in July 2017 include many similar complaints as other lawsuits but add the claim that dicamba is never safe to spray during the growing season. The complaint states that “given the well-recognized nature and patterns of cultivation in these (and other) regions, the proximity of other non-Xtend crops and plants, and the foreseeable weather patterns and timing of likely application, damage to nontarget crops and plants was inevitable and known to Defendants.” Despite the companies claims to the contrary, farmers experience with the new formulations have shown that they are very prone to drift. “How could Monsanto not know? How did they test and where did they test?” asks attorney Paul Byrd. MOnsanto claims that 99% of Xtendimax applications in 2017 have shown “wonderful results” and that 77% of off-target movements occurred due to the label not being followed ( i.e., operator error).
- Smokey Alley – Also in July, a class action suit in Missouri was filed on behalf of a group of farmers. This suit includes claims of anti-trust activity by BASF, Dupont, and Monsanto. The widespread introduction of dicamba-resistant technology has forced famers to plant the resistant crops to limit damage. “[Farmers] want to plant seeds of their choice, but due to damage potential have to consider buying dicamba-tolerant soybeans from a defensive position,” Attorney Paul Lesko.
- B&L Farms – On July 20, 14 producers from Arkansas file a class action suit against Monsanto and BASF including a ” litany of charges related to irresponsible marketing, product liability, breach of implied warranty, deceptive trade practices and more allegations.” FULL TEXT
Ty Vaughn for Monsanto, “Historic Testing of Our Dicamba Formulation, XtendiMax® with VaporGrip® Technology,” Monsanto website, August 24, 2017.
SUMMARY:
In response to criticism that volatility was not adequately studied, the this statement reviews Monsanto’s belief that they conducted extensive and “historic testing” of the new formulations, claiming a 90% reduction in volubility. FULL TEXT
ClassAction, “Morgan & Morgan Files Lawsuit on Behalf of Farmers Impacted by Dicamba,” PR Newswire, September 11, 2017.
SUMMARY:
The firm Morgan and Morgan filed a lawsuit on September 10th against Monsanto, BASF, and DuPont – the major producers of dicamba in the U.S.. The suit was filed in Illinois on behalf of the owner/operator of farm in Broughton, IL where hundreds of acres of soybeans and pumpkins were allegedly damaged by dicamba drift. “Farmers across the country relied upon the defendants’ assurances that these new formulations of dicamba could be used safely and without harm to others. That simply isn’t true, and as a result thousands of farmers are staring down lean harvests and uncertain futures” (Rene Rocha, attorney on the case). They are seeking an permanent injunction against marketing and selling Xtend crops, Xtendimax, Engenia, and Fexapan as well as compensation for losses and legal costs. “The dangers of this herbicide have been understood for decades. Unfortunately, instead of producing safe and effective weed control options, it appears that the defendants are using the threat of harm to eliminate their competition and dictate what crops farmers can and cannot plant.” FULL TEXT
Tom Polansek, “Monsanto fights to sell Arkansas farmers herbicide linked to crop damage,” Reuters, September 7, 2017.
SUMMARY:
Monsanto has formally petitioned the state of Arkansas to reject the proposed ban on dicamba spraying after April 15. The task force set up by Governor Hutchinson following thousands of complaints of crop damage from dicamba use on herbicide-resistant soybeans. Monsanto calls this an “unwarranted and misinformed” as dicamba is specifically designed for spraying in the summer over growing fields to target herbicide-resistant weeds. The company is claiming that the damage will “probably not cause significant yield losses” and called into question the objectivity and motives of key weed scientists who are working on the issue. Monsanto threatened legal action if their petition is not granted. FULL TEXT
Tom Polansek and Emily Flitter, “EPA eyes limits for agricultural chemical linked to crop damage,” Reuters, September 5, 2017.
SUMMARY:
More details on proposed EPA regulatory action ahead of 2018 growing season to address dicamba damage crisis. EPA is considering a cut-off date in spring or early summer for dicamba applications, allowing pre-emergence spraying only. The agency calls the extensive damage of this season unacceptable and warns of “significant changes” to the rules. This will impact Monsanto’s bottom line: “If the EPA imposed a April 15 cut-off date for dicamba spraying, that would be catastrophic for Xtend – it invalidates the entire point of planting it.” Article also notes the high cost of dicamba seed as farmers try and decide the benefit of ordering the resistant seed. ” Dicamba-tolerant soybeans cost about $64 a bag, compared with about $28 a bag for Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans and about $50 a bag for soybeans resistant to Bayer’s Liberty herbicide.”
FULL TEXT
Chuck Abbott, “Dicamba is ‘tremendous success,’ says Monsanto; EPA mulls rule change,” FERN’s AG Insider, August 31, 2017.
SUMMARY:
Monsanto claims they will have enough dicamba-resistant seed available for half the U.S. soybean acreage, and chief technology officer Robb Fraley described dicamba as a “tremendous success” for most farmers. EPA, however, is considering changes ahead of the 2018 season. “We don’t consider this to be normal growing pains for a new technology,” says an EPA official who oversees herbicide regulations. Monsanto again claims the key is “strict adherence to instructions.” FULL TEXT
Steve Smith, “RE: Citizen’s Petition to Classify Pesticides with the Active Ingredient Dicamba as Restricted Use,” Save Our Crops Coalition Petition to the EPA, May 24, 2016.
SUMMARY:
Non-target plant damage associated with herbicide spray drift and volatilization is a major concern for specialty crop growers and processors. Credible estimates project significant increases in the amount of dicamba that will be applied upon the introduction of dicamba-tolerant crops, and, dicamba, because of its potential to drift and volatilize, has proven to be one of America’s most dangerous herbicides for non-target plant damage. Thus, SOCC respectfully submits the following petition requesting EPA conduct a classification review of products with the active ingredient dicamba to determine whether any or all such products should be classified for restricted use. FULL TEXT
Center for Food Safety, “Summary of Center for Food Safety’s Science Comments to EPA on Monsanto’s Request to Register Dicamba Herbicide for Use on Monsanto’s Dicamba-Resistant MON 87708 Soybean,” September 21, 2012.
SUMMARY:
In brief, the introduction of MON 87708 would trigger a huge increase in the use of
dicamba herbicide in American agriculture. This in turn would trigger numerous adverse impacts, including: 1) Rapid evolution of weeds resistant to dicamba and related herbicides; 2) Much increased crop damage from the highly volatile dicamba drifting onto neighbors’ crops; 3) Potential health harms to farmers and the public from greater exposure to dicamba; and 4) Injury to wild plants and animals that depend on them, including threatened and endangered species, from dicamba drift and runoff. FULL TEXT
