albedo20 / Flickr
By Pat Thomas
Throughout the U.S., major food brands are trying to get rid of GMO ingredients — not necessarily for the right reasons, but because nearly half of consumers say they avoid them in their food, primarily for health reasons.
But the CEO of Impossible Foods, purveyor of the Impossible Burger, is bucking that trend.
<p>The manufacturers of the <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/promotion-gmo-derived-impossible-burger-worlds-largest-natural-food-trade-show-denounced" target="_blank">controversial</a> veggie burger just announced that in the future, due to "high demand" for the product, its plant-based patties will be made using GMO soy.</p><p>The formula change was made to ensure the smooth rollout of the Impossible Burger in Burger King restaurants. The soy formulation is apparently better able to withstand Burger King's trademark <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/impossible-burger-national-launch-gmo-soy-burger-king-2019-5?r=US&IR=T" target="_blank">flame grilling</a>. As a result, in early in 2019, Impossible Foods dumped the textured wheat protein it had been using and replaced it with soy protein concentrate instead.</p><p>Pat Brown, founder and CEO of Impossible Foods, publicly <a href="https://medium.com/impossible-foods/how-our-commitment-to-consumers-and-our-planet-led-us-to-use-gm-soy-23f880c93408" target="_blank">defended</a> the move. But a closer look reveals that Brown's claims about the healthfulness and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sustainability">sustainability</a> of "Impossible Burger 2.0" just don't stack up.</p><p>Here are six reasons the CEO of Impossible Burger is wrong when he claims that GMO soy is "the safest and most environmentally responsible option" for scaling up production of the fake meat product — a product that already uses a genetically engineered yeast, called heme, as its key ingredient.</p>
<h2>1. Dubious Health Claims</h2><p>When the switch to soy was first made. Sue Klapholz, Impossible Foods vice president of nutrition & health, <a href="https://medium.com/impossible-foods/soy-facts-myths-and-why-its-in-our-new-recipe-12815b4997cf" target="_blank">said</a> that "Soy is not only safe; it's accessible, nutritious."</p><p>That's not quite true.</p><p>Results from studies showing healthful properties of fermented soy products like tofu or miso are sometimes used to support the healthfulness of other, more highly processed types of soy.</p><p>But all soy is not created equal.</p><p>In the messy world of soy studies, where "soy" can be defined as almost anything with soy in it, there are just as many <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/soy/" target="_blank">studies</a> showing no or only marginal benefits, and in some cases, potential for harm — e. g. interference with thyroid medication — from diets high in soy.</p><p>Soy protein isolates and concentrates are made from defatted soybean flakes that have been washed in either alcohol or water to remove the sugars and dietary fiber. The flakes are then processed into powders or "flours."</p><p>Alcohol is the most common process, as it produces products with a neutral taste. But the beneficial isoflavones in soy are removed by this method. Soy protein concentrate has the <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/134/5/1229S/4688709" target="_blank">lowest level</a> of healthful isoflavones — including daidzein, genistein and glycitein — of any form of processed soy.</p><p>There are other differences between the various types of soy. A 2014 study comparing GMO and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/organic">organic</a> soy beans found small but statistically significant <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201" target="_blank">differences</a> in the nutritional quality: The organic soybeans had slightly higher protein levels and lower levels of omega-6 fatty acids. Omega-3 fatty acids showed no significant difference. Both fats are essential in human diets, but U.S. eaters tend to consume a <a href="https://www.drweil.com/vitamins-supplements-herbs/vitamins/balancing-omega-3-and-omega-6/" target="_blank">higher ratio</a> of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids than is healthy.</p>
<h2>2. Higher Use of Pesticides</h2><p>Brown says that "careful analysis" has "conclusively shown" GMO soy is "better for the environment than the alternatives."</p><p>Absolutely untrue. GMO soy, whether fed to cows or people, is bad for the environment.</p><p>A 2013 Food & Water Watch <a href="http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/superweeds/" target="_blank">study</a>, based on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data, found that planting GM crops quickly resulted in the growth of herbicide-resistant "superweeds" which caused farmers to increase their herbicide use.</p><p>That report echoed the findings of another <a href="https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24" target="_blank">study</a> produced by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook in 2012. In 2016, research from University of Virginia confirmed that <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">glyphosate</a>-resistant weeds have led to a <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600850" target="_blank">28-percent hike</a> in herbicide use on GM soybeans compared with non-GM.</p><p>This has also been seen in other countries, including <a href="https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/AGRI/Brief/BR8451190/br-external/CanadianBiotechnologyActionNetwork-e.pdf" target="_blank">Canada</a>, <a href="http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-81232017021003333" target="_blank">Brazil</a> and <a href="https://www.grain.org/article/entries/706-twelve-years-of-gm-soya-in-argentina-a-disaster-for-people-and-the-environment" target="_blank">Argentina</a>.</p><p>There is also evidence that <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/glyphosate-fact-sheet" target="_blank">glyphosate</a>, the active ingredient in Monsanto's <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/monsantos-roundup-enough-make-you-sick" target="_blank">Roundup</a> weedkiller, accumulates in GM soy. The same study that found GM soy is nutritionally inferior to organic, and that GM-soy <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201" target="_blank">contained</a> high residues of glyphosate and its toxic breakdown product AMPA, while conventional and organic soybeans were free of these agrochemicals.</p><p>That may help explain why a recent laboratory analysis by Moms Across America found glyphosate residues in the new formula Impossible Burger. The <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/yesmaam/pages/8069/attachments/original/1557958339/COA_S0004900_Impossible_Burger_and_Beyond_Meat_patty_-_glyphosate.pdf?1557958339" target="_blank">levels of glyphosate</a> and its toxic breakdown product AMPA were low (11 ppb) but as the Moms note, evidence from animal feed studies indicates that just 0.1 ppb of glyphosate can <a href="http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/yesmaam/pages/680/attachments/original/1393210354/Glyphosat__publikation__Shehata_und_Kr%C3%BCger.pdf?1393210354" target="_blank">destroy gut bacteria</a>.</p><p>Other studies of animals fed GM foods and/or glyphosate show worrying trends, including <a href="http://earthopensource.org/wordpress/downloads/GMO-Myths-and-Truths-edition2.pdf" target="_blank">damage</a> to vital organs like the liver and kidneys, damage to gut tissues and gut flora, immune system disruption, reproductive abnormalities and even tumors.</p><p>Agrichemical companies continue to claim that glyphosate is safe. Yet glyphosate is a "probable human carcinogen" <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/" target="_blank">according to</a> the World Health Organization (WHO), and its maker <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto">Monsanto</a> (Bayer) has recently been <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/monsanto-ordered-pay-2-billion-cancer-victims" target="_blank">ordered</a> to pay out billions in compensation to victims who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma as a result of using the weedkiller. More cases are pending.</p>
<h2>3. No Benefits for Farmers</h2><p>According to Brown, the company decided to source "American-grown, milled and processed GM soy" that is "from farms in Iowa, Minnesota and Illinois" because there just isn't enough non-GMO soy to meet demand.</p><p>There is no question that GM soy is more plentiful than non-GM soy in the U.S. In fact, the U.S. grows more soybeans than any other country except Brazil. <a href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx#.U1b1TYKjIuI" target="_blank">According to the USDA</a>, more than 90 percent of the soybeans harvested on U.S. farms are genetically engineered to withstand herbicides, especially Roundup.</p><p>That should translate into more crops to sell, but an in-depth <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html" target="_blank">investigation</a> by the New York Times found that, in addition to increasing pesticide use, genetic modification in the U.S. and Canada has not brought the expected increases in crop yields.</p><p>This echoes the findings of a 2016 National Academy of Sciences report that found "<a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects" target="_blank">there was little evidence</a>" that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the U.S. had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops.</p><p>Right now, U.S. farmers are suffering from a <a href="https://www.producer.com/2019/02/u-s-soy-glut-could-take-three-years-to-eliminate/" target="_blank">glut of soy</a>, thanks to ongoing trade disputes with China, which have resulted in low prices and farm bankruptcies.</p>
<h2>4. Kills Biodiversity</h2><p>The adoption of GMO herbicide-resistant crops like soy has favored the use of herbicides over tried and tested methods of weed management, such as crop rotation.</p><p>In addition to creating superweeds, glyphosate-based herbicides damage microbial life in the soil, which makes crops more susceptible to diseases. They are toxic to a range of aquatic organisms and also kill beneficial "weeds" like milkweed, a <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/monarch-butterfles-problem-herbicides" target="_blank">major food source</a> for the Monarch butterfly.</p><p>As weeds become resistant, older and stronger pesticides such as 2,4-D or dicamba, are being used. In 2017-18, "dicamba drift" was responsible for damage to an estimated <a href="https://www.revealnews.org/article/scientists-warned-this-weed-killer-would-destroy-crops-epa-approved-it-anyway/" target="_blank">5 million acres</a> of non-GM soybeans in 24 states, in addition to numerous specialty crops and wild plants.</p><p>Globally, soy plantations have been responsible for <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/stop-deforestation/drivers-of-deforestation-2016-soybeans" target="_blank">wholesale clearing</a> of forests and savannahs in places like Brazil, with the added effect of contributing to climate change. In the U.S., land converted to soy production has typically been pre-existing agricultural land and so is not linked to deforestation. But increasing demand for soy is destroying American prairies. Analysis of satellite data has shown that between 2006 and 2011, farmers in the Dakotas, Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska had converted <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/02/13/1215404110.abstract?sid=6beb2b07-ff9f-4090-a5dc-ec4811e46f7a" target="_blank">1.3 million acres</a> of grassland into soybean and corn production.</p><p>Research by <a href="http://static.ewg.org/pdf/plowed_under.pdf" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group</a> and the USDA's <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=44880" target="_blank">Economic Research Service</a> supports this finding.</p><p>These monocultures are bad news for wildlife, because they destroy habitats for a wide range of wild creatures, from ground-nesting birds to pollinators like bees and butterflies.</p><p>But crop monocultures also lead to mono-diets. Agricultural diversity ensures a healthier environment and greater food security on a global scale. But the over-focus on cash crops like soy means that today just a <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/02/26/1313490111.full.pdf" target="_blank">handful of crops</a> now dominate diets around the world. This new global diet has more calories and less nutrition, and is responsible for the global rise in non-communicable diseases such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes.</p>
<h2>5. No 'Scientific Consensus' Around Safety</h2><p>Brown proclaims there is "scientific consensus that GMOs are safe for consumers and the environment — a view now endorsed by the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization."</p><p>But Brown's statement is factually untrue.</p><p>A <a href="https://beyond-gm.org/who-says-gmos-are-safe-and-who-says-theyre-not/" target="_blank">closer look</a> at these claims shows that the AMA's Council on Science and Public Health statement opposing GMO labeling <a href="http://ag.utah.gov/documents/AMA-BioengineeredFoods.pdf" target="_blank">did not claim GMOs are safe</a>. It acknowledged "a small potential for adverse events ... due mainly to horizontal gene transfer, allergenicity and toxicity." The AMA recommended mandatory safety assessments prior to release of GM foods — a system which, as the AMA pointed out, is not in place in the U.S.</p><p>The National Academy of Sciences has not issued any blanket claims of GMO safety. It did issue a report in which it analyzed a range of plant-breeding techniques and concluded that GM posed a <a href="http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309092094" target="_blank">higher risk</a> of introducing unintended changes into food than any other crop breeding method other than mutation breeding, a method in which plant genomes are bombarded with radiation or chemicals to induce mutations.</p><p>The WHO has stated: "No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved."</p><p>But take a look at the <a href="http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html" target="_blank">text</a> that preceded that sentence: "Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." The WHO also recommends that "adequate post-market monitoring" is carried out to ensure the safety of GM foods.</p><p>Yet such monitoring is not carried out anywhere in the world.</p><p>In fact, GM foods were not subjected to human trials before being released into the food chain. Their human health impacts are not being studied by any government agency, nor by the companies that produce them.</p><p>That's why nearly 300 independent scientists from around the world issued a public warning that there was <a href="https://ensser.org/tag/no-consensus-on-gmo-safety/" target="_blank">no scientific consensus</a> about the safety of eating genetically modified food, and that the risks, as demonstrated in independent research, gave "serious cause for concern."</p>
<h2>6. Ignores Consumer Concerns</h2><p>Brown says "we believe in our consumers and respect their right to consider the facts and decide for themselves." He adds that the inclusion of GMO soy will lead to "noise from anti-genetic engineering fundamentalists."</p><p>But concerns about GMOs aren't just "noise." They persist because they are legitimate, and because consumers want facts from independent researchers and other sources who are not <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html" target="_blank">paid mouthpieces</a> for the GMO industry, or brands with a bias.</p><p>U.S. consumers overwhelmingly want GMO foods labeled so they can make real informed choices. Impossible Foods has chosen to ignore both legitimate concerns and the desire for choice by insinuating its fake meat burger onto the market via independent restaurants, large restaurant chains, theme parks, museums, stadiums, college campuses and corporate offices — places where no food labeling is required and where customers are least likely to ask questions.</p><p>It's time to demand more from the food we eat, better protection from our regulators and a higher level of truthfulness and transparency from food brands.</p><p>If you want to let the CEO of Impossible Foods know that he's wrong about GMO soy, <a href="https://advocacy.organicconsumers.org/page/11006/action/1" target="_blank">click here</a>.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Promotion of GMO-Derived Impossible Burger at World’s Largest Natural Food Trade Show Denounced as Deceptive <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GMO?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#GMO</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ImpossibleBurger?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ImpossibleBurger</a> <a href="https://t.co/pzQtR6M9Q0">https://t.co/pzQtR6M9Q0</a></p>— Non-GMO Report (@nongmoreport) <a href="https://twitter.com/nongmoreport/status/1113898937436573696?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 4, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/05/21/6-reasons-impossible-burgers-ceo-wrong-about-gmo-soy?cd-origin=rss" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- Impossible Burger and the Road to Consumer Distrust - EcoWatch ›
- What Is the Impossible Burger, and Is It Healthy? - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Wine makers in West Texas are reeling from herbicide drift injuries on their grapevines, an emerging threat to the state's $13 billion a year industry, NPR's Morning Edition reported Tuesday.
The damage likely originates from use of Monsanto's dicamba and Dow's 2,4-D formulations on nearby cotton fields. The companies sell cotton seeds that are genetically modified to withstand applications of the weedkillers. If farmers use the products improperly, the highly volatile chemicals can get picked up by the wind and land on off-target crops. When exposed to the herbicides, the leaves on non-target plants are often left cupped and distorted.
<p>
Drift damage has ranged from "light exposure" that does not harm the grapes to "total devastation" at some wineries, according to NPR.
</p><p>
<span></span><a href="https://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/vitwine/our-specialists/" target="_blank">Pierre Helwi</a> is a viticulturist for the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, who monitors dozens of the region's vineyards estimates that 90-95 percent of them have been damaged.
</p><p style="">
Texas, the fifth largest wine producer in the country, is home to more than 400 wineries, according to the <a href="https://www.txwines.org/about-texas-wine#TexasWineFacts" target="_blank">Texas Wine and Grape Growers Association</a>. West Texas, which has a dry climate ideal for growing cotton as well as wine grapes, has become the backbone of the state's wine industry and grows about 80 percent of its wine grapes.
</p><p>
<span></span>Last year, West Texas vintners <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/wine-monsanto-dow-dicamba-2-4-d-2177053648.html" target="_blank">expressed this very concern</a> that federal <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-monsanto-dicamba-gmos-2087899331.html">approval</a> of Monsanto and Dow's formulations could jeopardize the sector.
</p><p>
This is the
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/dicamba-crop-damage-2580306844.html" target="_blank">third year in a row</a> where dicamba has affected the nation's crops. A <a href="https://ipm.missouri.edu/IPCM/2018/7/July-15-Dicamba-injury-update-different-year-same-questions/">report</a> from the University of Missouri last month found that dicamba drift caused more than 1 million acres of crop injuries across the U.S.
</p><p style="">
<span></span>The ongoing saga of pesticide drift highlights the growing issue of herbicide-resistant weeds, or <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/genetically-engineered-crops-trigger-cycle-of-superweeds-and-toxic-pes-1881771901.html" target="_blank">superweeds</a>, that have evolved to resist the herbicide <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-glyphosate-cheerios-2093130379.html" target="_blank">glyphosate</a>, or Roundup. In response to weeds such as pigweed that have infested farms across the U.S., <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agribusiness">agribusinesses</a> such as Monsanto and Dow have developed stronger formulations to help farmers.
</p><p style="">
The companies have said their weedkillers can be safely used with proper training and if farmers adhere to label instructions, although some have complained that the instructions are too restrictive or
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-basf-epa-dicamba-2497674908.html">difficult to follow</a>.
</p><p>
Farmers and conservation groups have
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/pesticide-drift-lawsuit-xtendimax-2534117304.html">waged</a> <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-lawsuit-dow-enlist-duo-2323372668.html" target="_blank">lawsuits</a> against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/pesticide-drift-lawsuit-xtendimax-2534117304.html">EPA</a>) for approving Monsanto and Dow's mixtures.
</p><p style="">
Dicamba's federal approval is subject to expiration this fall, during which the EPA will decide whether to renew the registration or let it expire. 2,4-D is also currently undergoing
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation" target="_blank">registration review</a>.
</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Dicamba Drift Could Put 60 Million Acres of Monarch Habitat at Risk ›
- New Dicamba Drift Estimate: 1.1 Million Acres Damaged Already in ... ›
- Dicamba Weed Killer Linked to Cancer Is Reapproved by EPA - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Significant cupping of leaves from dicamba drift on non-Xtend soybeans planted next to Xtend beans in research plots at the Ashland Bottoms farm near Manhattan, KS. Dallas Peterson, K-State Research and Extension / CC BY 2.0
Two of the nation's largest independent seed sellers, Beck's Hybrids and Stine Seed, are urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to place limits on the spraying of the drift-prone pesticide dicamba, Reuters reported.
This could potentially hurt Monsanto, which along with DowDupont and BASF SE, makes dicamba formulations to use on Monsanto's Xtend seeds that are genetically engineered to resist applications of the weedkiller. Beck's Hybrids and Stine Seed, as well as other companies, sell those seeds.
<p>
<span></span>The push from the two companies comes after a University of Missouri <a href="https://ipm.missouri.edu/ipcm/2018/7/July-15-Dicamba-injury-update-different-year-same-questions/" target="_blank">report</a> in July that estimated 1.1 million acres of non-resistant soybeans have been accidentally damaged by dicamba this year so far. Off-target damage has also been reported on other agricultural crops, trees and plants. In 2017, the highly volatile chemical damaged a reported <a href="https://ipm.missouri.edu/IPCM/2017/10/final_report_dicamba_injured_soybean/" target="_blank">3.6 million acres</a> of crops, according to the University of Missouri.
</p><p>
Crop injuries have surfaced despite efforts from the EPA and many states that have introduced
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/registration-dicamba-use-genetically-engineered-crops" target="_blank">restrictions</a> to prevent off-target dicamba damage.
</p><p>
<span></span>"I've been doing this for 50 years and we've never had anything be as damaging as this dicamba situation," Stine Seed founder and CEO Harry Stine told Reuters. "In this case, Monsanto made an error."
</p><p>
Monsanto, which was purchased for $63 billion by German chemicals and pharmaceuticals giant Bayer, has been
<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-roundup-ready-soybean-1983477089.html" target="_blank">sharply criticized</a> for selling its dicamba-tolerant Xtend seeds before securing EPA approval for the herbicide designed to go along with it. Monsanto developed the Xtend system to address <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/superweeds" target="_blank">superweeds</a> that have grown resistant to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_blank">glyphosate</a>, the main ingredient in <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/roundup" target="_blank">Roundup</a>. <span></span>
</p><p>
In a June 27 letter to the EPA, Beck's urged the EPA to modify the current dicamba label on Xtend crops to only allow usage as a pre-plant option and disallow in-season applications.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="c8643" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="EJ405W1576661897"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1028032225621749761" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">@joelbrown22 Beck’s is committed to offering farmers choices. We support the use of Xtend soybeans but we believe t… https://t.co/3noOhbTaDc</div> — Beck's Hybrids (@Beck's Hybrids)<a href="https://twitter.com/BecksHybrids/statuses/1028032225621749761">1533936957.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
Monsanto and BASF told Reuters that farmers need dicamba to beat back weeds. DowDuPont did not offer a comment in the report. The companies have said their products can be safely used with proper training and if farmers adhere to label instructions.
</p><p>
But in a Beck's poll of 690 farmers, only 22.6 percent said the label should be kept the way it currently reads, according to a Aug. 10
<a href="https://twitter.com/BecksHybrids/status/1028032225621749761" target="_blank">statement</a> from Beck's CEO Sonny Beck and President Scott Beck.
</p><p>
"There is still a significant amount of dicamba complaints in 2018 as there was in 2017. It appears that although people may follow the label, the product continues to move off-target," they said.
</p><p>
In a
<a href="https://crops.extension.iastate.edu/cropnews/2018/08/dicamba-2018-iowa-experience" target="_blank">blog post</a> this week, Bob Hartzler, an Iowa State University (ISU) professor of agronomy and an extension weed specialist, said off-target dicamba injury has continued despite new label restrictions and mandatory training for applicators.
</p><p>
"The majority of growers using the Xtend system are happy with the increased performance in weed control obtained with dicamba compared to alternatives," he wrote. "However, one ISU Extension and Outreach agronomist stated that farmers planting non-dicamba resistant soybean 'are really upset with the continued off-target movement of dicamba.'"
</p><p>
He noted that while less than 5 percent of Iowa's nearly 10 million soybean acres have been injured by dicamba, "if you are a farmer whose crop has been damaged by dicamba, the fact that the majority of soybean in the state were not affected is of little consolation."
</p><p>
Hartzler said that efforts to limit crop injuries have been unsuccessful. "It is my opinion that the new label restrictions placed following the 2017 growing season, and the training required for applicators of the new dicamba products, has failed to reduce off-target problems to an acceptable level."
</p><p>
Dicamba's federal approval is subject to expiration this fall, during which the EPA will decide whether to renew the registration or let it expire.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="3a734" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="H6QOAB1576661897"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1022074527172444160" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">New Dicamba Drift Estimate: 1.1 Million Acres Damaged Already in 2018
#dicambadrift #dicamba https://t.co/ZQvfHOiAjk</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1022074527172444160">1532516531.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Brian Smith and his cousin Hughes, both fifth generation soybean farmers in Mississippi County, Arkansas, stand in soybean fields their family tend to that show signs of having been affected by dicamba use in August, 2017. Getty Images
A University of Missouri report released Thursday estimates that drift damage from the pesticide dicamba has occurred across 1.1 million acres of agricultural crops, trees and other plants so far this year.
This comes less than a year after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and many states introduced additional restrictions meant to prevent off-target damage from the pesticide. Last year dicamba drift wreaked havoc on a reported 3.6 million acres of soybean crops not genetically engineered to resist the notoriously drift-prone pesticide.
<p>"The widespread damage to crops and even hearty trees like the catalpa and Bradford pear confirms this drift-prone poison can't be safely used and shouldn't get approved by the EPA again," said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the <a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a>. "You'd have better luck herding kittens than getting dicamba to stay put. The EPA's new leadership needs to end the use of this dangerous pesticide."</p><p>Highly toxic dicamba products are designed for use primarily on next-generation soybeans genetically engineered to resist what would normally be a fatal dose of the pesticide.</p><p>A previous report released last month <a href="https://ipm.missouri.edu/IPCM/2018/6/dicambaInjuryUpdate/" target="_blank">noted</a> that reported damage to specialty crops, vegetables, ornamental species and trees has increased dramatically, indicating that many types of plants can be damaged by dicamba.</p><p>Earlier this year a Center for Biological Diversity <a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/pesticides_reduction/dicamba-a-menace-to-monarchs.html" target="_blank">report</a> found that more than 60 million acres of monarch butterfly habitat are projected to be sprayed with dicamba by next year. Dicamba can degrade monarch habitat in two ways: by harming flowering plants that provide nectar for adults as they travel south for the winter and by harming milkweed, which, as the only food of monarch caterpillars, is essential for the butterfly's reproduction.</p><p>"In addition to the farming community again getting slammed by dicamba drift, this uncontrollable pesticide is harming wild plants just outside of agricultural fields that provide important animal habitat," said Donley. "The only reason farmers are turning to dicamba is to kill the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">glyphosate</a>-resistant superweeds sprouting across millions of acres. Dumping more and more <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides">pesticides</a> on crops just keeps farmers on the pesticide treadmill. Meanwhile neighboring farms and wildlife pay the cost."</p><p>Dicamba has a time-limited regulatory federal approval that is subject to expiration by Nov. 9, 2018 unless it is renewed by the EPA. The agency will <a href="https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2018/06/20/epa-weighs-dicamba-registrations" target="_blank">decide</a> in mid-August whether to renew the new dicamba registration or let it expire.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="30c38" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5U5QUU1576661903"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="969308105317154816" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Dicamba Drift Could Put 60 Million Acres of Monarch Habitat at Risk https://t.co/HGzQZubBbF @WWF @NWF @foe_us @OrganicConsumer</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/969308105317154816">1519936035.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Environmentalists and Farmers Seek Court Decision Halting Use of Dow’s 'Agent Orange' Pesticide
13 April 2018
Food
Late Wednesday, a coalition of environmental organizations and farmers represented by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Earthjustice filed new legal papers in federal court seeking the reversal of Scott Pruitt and the Trump Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of Dow Chemical's toxic pesticide, Enlist Duo. The novel pesticide is a combination of glyphosate and 2,4-D, to be sprayed over the top of corn, cotton and soybeans that are genetically engineered by Dow with resistance to both pesticides.
<p style="">"Our filing reveals that EPA approved Enlist Duo despite its significant harms to health, environment, farms, water, and endangered species," said Sylvia Wu, CFS attorney and counsel for the coalition. "EPA's job is protecting the environment, human health, and farmers, not blindly do the bidding of pesticide companies. The court must stop its use."</p><p style="">In early 2017, EPA dramatically expanded approval of Enlist Duo use to 34 states and for use on cotton, only one year after a court <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4144/epa-pulls-registration-for-dows-enlist-duo-herbicide-citing-high-toxicity-levels" target="_blank">sent back EPA's previous approval</a>. The two chemicals in Enlist Duo do more damage when used together than the net damage they do when used separately.</p><p>"EPA has put human health, neighboring crops, and the survival and recovery of hundreds of endangered species at risk by recklessly putting a potent and toxic pesticide on the market without the data or expert review the law requires," said Paul Achitoff, Earthjustice attorney and counsel for the coalition. "We, and the law, demand much more from the agency created to protect our health and environment than bowing to chemical industry pressure."</p><p style=""><a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/video/2519/cfs-videos/dow-destroying-our-world/3004/dow-chemicals-mad-men" target="_blank">Dow markets Enlist Duo</a> and its companion Enlist crops as a quick fix for the "superweeds" epidemic created by prior genetically engineered "Roundup Ready" crops, genetically engineered to withstand what would otherwise be a toxic dose of the herbicide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup. Repeated use of Roundup on these crops has resulted in the proliferation of glyphosate-resistant superweeds which now infest over a hundred million acres of U.S. farmland. These superweeds now require an even more toxic combination of herbicides, like Enlist Duo, to take them out, driving a dangerous spiral of increasing weed resistance and pesticide use. The U.S. Department of Agriculture conservatively estimates that use of Enlist Duo on U.S. corn and soybean will increase the use of 2,4-D by 200 to 600 percent.</p><p style="">Jim Goodman, an organic dairy and beef rancher from Wisconsin and board president of National Family Farm Coalition, one of the petitioners in the case, commented, "2,4-D is a possible carcinogen, an endocrine-disruptor and a herbicide that is very drift prone and persistent in the environment. The combination of 2,4-D and glyphosate in Enlist Duo is a recipe for disaster. It may control Roundup-resistant weeds, but only for a while, and at what cost to the health of farm workers, consumers and the environment?" Denise O'Brien, an Iowa farmer and board president of the Pesticide Action Network, emphasized EPA's responsibility to protect rural communities. "By continuing to cave to the pesticide industry's every wish, EPA is abandoning its duty to protect the health of our rural communities and our farmers' livelihoods from these toxic, drift-prone chemicals."</p><p style="">More than half a million people submitted comments to EPA urging the agency to reject Dow's plan to sell Enlist Duo. U.S. National Cancer Institute scientists highlighted 2,4-D specifically as associated with a two- to eight-fold increases in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization classified 2,4-D as a possible carcinogen to humans and glyphosate as a probable carcinogen to humans.</p><p style="">"EPA's decision to allow 2,4-D threaten farmers, farmworkers, rural communities and consumers. With this decision causing a predicted massive increase in use—as much as a seven-fold increase by 2020—the agency is violating any reasonable risk standard, given the productivity and profitability of sustainable organic practices," said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.</p><p style="">Spraying Enlist Duo over millions of new acres will also contaminate waterways and important wildlife habitats. Monarch butterfly populations have declined due to the loss of their milkweed host plants, which glyphosate kills. The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to ensure its actions to not jeopardize the existence of any endangered species. EPA admitted its approval could harm hundreds of endangered species, including the whooping crane and Indiana bat, but still failed to comply with the ESA.</p><p style="">"EPA's hasty approval of this dangerous pesticide cocktail will cause severe harm to human health and the environment unless we are able to stop it with this lawsuit," said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Its rush to do the bidding of pesticide companies shows that the EPA is prioritizing corporate profits over their duty protect us from harmful toxins."</p><p style="">The plaintiff coalition is Center for Food Safety, Center for Biological Diversity, Beyond Pesticides, Pesticide Action Network North America, National Family Farm Coalition, and Family Farm Defenders, jointly represented by legal counsel from Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice.</p>
Read More
Show Less
www.youtube.com
Just this year, more than three million acres of crops across the country have been reportedly damaged by a highly volatile and drift-prone herbicide, dicamba. That's on top of the similar, widespread complaints from the year before.
States such as Arkansas, Missouri and Illinois have now received so many reports of dicamba-linked crop damage that officials face four years of backlogs of cases to investigate, driving up costs for lab tests and overtime, Reuters reported.
<p style="">
"We don't have the staff to be able to handle 400 investigations in a year plus do all the other required work," Paul Bailey, director of the Plant Industries division of the Missouri Department of Agriculture, explained.
</p><p style="">
The controversy surrounding the weedkiller <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-roundup-ready-soybean-1983477089.html" target="_blank">started last year</a> after agritech giant <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto">Monsanto</a>—in a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/wine-monsanto-dow-dicamba-2-4-d-2177053648.html" target="_blank">highly criticized move</a>—decided to sell its <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/">genetically modified</a>, dicamba-tolerant Xtend cotton and soybean seeds several growing seasons before getting federal approval for the corresponding herbicide. Without having the proper herbicide, cotton and soybean growers were suspected of illegally spraying older versions of dicamba onto their crops and inadvertently damaging nearby non-target crops due to drift and volatilization. Off-target crops are often left <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/missouri-peach-farm-sues-monsanto-dicamba-drift-2133507960.html" target="_blank">cupped and distorted</a> when exposed to the chemical.
</p><p style="">
<span></span>Take a look at Missouri's Department of Agriculture pesticide drift <a href="http://agriculture.mo.gov/plants/pesticides/dicamba-facts.php" target="_blank">complaints</a> from the last six years. Notice how dicamba-related complaints have skyrocketed since 2016:
</p><ul class="ee-ul">
<li>FY 2012 – 97</li>
<li>FY 2013 – 75 (one complaint was Dicamba-related)</li>
<li>FY 2014 – 75</li>
<li>FY 2015 – 90 (three complaints were Dicamba-related)</li>
<li>FY 2016 – 97 (27 complaints are allegedly Dicamba-related)</li>
<li>FY 2017 (July 1, 2016 – June 27, 2017) – 325 (212 complaints are allegedly Dicamba-related)</li>
<li>Calendar year 2017 (Jan. 1 – Dec. 31) – 375 (310 complaints are allegedly Dicamba-related) (Updated: Oct. 26, 2017)</li>
</ul><p style="">
As of Oct. 15, states have launched 2,708 investigations into dicamba damage nationwide, the University of Missouri found.
</p><p style="">
Monsanto developed its Xtend system to address "<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/superweeds" target="_blank">superweeds</a>" that have grown resistant to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_blank">glyphosate</a>, the main ingredient in the company's former bread-and-butter, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/roundup" target="_blank">Roundup</a>.
</p><p style="">
Monsanto,
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dupont" target="_blank">DuPont</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/basf" target="_blank">BASF</a> SE now sell federally approved dicamba formulations that the companies say are less drift-prone and volatile than older versions when used correctly. The companies have blamed farmers for improperly using the weedkiller.
</p><p style="">
But Arkansas farmer Reed Storey insists dicamba is causing damage even when directions are followed.
</p><p style="">
"I'm calling strictly to let y'all know that we have an issue with this product," Storey told state regulators last month.
</p><p style="">
Arkansas, which has logged the most dicamba-related cases at 985, is a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/arkansas-dicamba-2488282344.html" target="_blank">step away</a> from banning the chemical (again) next summer. Monsanto filed a lawsuit to stop the proposed ban.
</p><p style="">
<span></span>Reuters noted that the rapid increase of crop damage could also spell future sales troubles for the manufacturers.
</p>
Read More
Show Less
www.youtube.com
The Arkansas Plant Board has approved new regulations that prohibit the use of dicamba from April 16 through Oct. 31, 2018 after receiving nearly 1,000 complaints of pesticide misuse in the state.
Arkansas, which temporarily banned the highly volatile weedkiller in July, could now face legal action from Monsanto, the developers of dicamba-resistant soybeans or cotton and the corresponding pesticide, aka the Xtend crop system.
<p>
<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pesticides-arkansas/arkansas-one-step-from-ban-on-controversial-herbicide-next-summer-idUSKCN1BW33A" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reports:
</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">
"Monsanto previously submitted a petition asking the board to reject the proposed cutoff date for sprayings and warned the company may file a lawsuit if the board denied the request. If implemented, the deadline could hurt sales of dicamba herbicides and Monsanto seeds resistant to the chemical.
</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">
The board unanimously denied Monsanto's petition and will work with legal staff to prepare a response, according to a statement.
</p><p>
<span></span>Monsanto developed its Xtend system to address "<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/superweeds" target="_blank">superweeds</a>" that have grown resistant to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_blank">glyphosate</a>, the main ingredient in the company's former bread-and-butter, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/roundup" target="_blank">Roundup</a>. It's not surprising that the company might file suit against Arkansas—Xtend crops are <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pesticides-epa-exclusive/exclusive-epa-eyes-limits-for-agricultural-chemical-linked-to-crop-damage-idUSKCN1BG1GT" target="_blank">expected</a> to expand across 80 million acres in the U.S., creating a $400-$800 million opportunity.
</p><p style="">
<span></span>What's happening in Arkansas is just a small slice of what's happening <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-dicamba-2468298141.html">across the country's farm belt</a>. Complaints of dicamba damage have surfaced in 24 states, impacting roughly 3 million acres.
</p><p>
"We are in unprecedented, uncharted territory," Andrew Thostenson, a pesticide program specialist with North Dakota State University Extension, told
<a href="https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/crops/article/2017/09/20/state-pesticide-regulators-face-2018" target="_blank">DTN</a>. "We've never observed anything on this scale in this country since we've been using pesticides in the modern era."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xMTE3MDEyNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNDg3Nzk0MH0.xB-ZHdT3jvLBC_XcO5rUsRBmgAOnC2WCdjWLiYuEGIg/img.jpg?width=980" id="386cf" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ee59813e8bbdb4d5f1946ae7a4af9b85" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p><p>
The controversy surrounding dicamba
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-lawsuits-dicamba-drift-2265408929.html" target="_blank">started last year</a> when Monsanto decided to sell its Xtend cotton and soybean seeds several growing seasons before getting federal approval for the corresponding herbicide. Without having the proper herbicide, cotton and soybean growers were suspected of illegally spraying older versions of dicamba onto their crops and inadvertently damaging nearby non-target crops due to drift. Off-target crops are often left <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/missouri-peach-farm-sues-monsanto-dicamba-drift-2133507960.html" target="_blank">cupped and distorted</a> when exposed to the chemical.
</p><p>
Monsanto, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dupont" target="_blank">DuPont</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/basf" target="_blank">BASF</a> SE, now sell federally approved dicamba formulations that are supposedly less drift-prone and volatile than older versions when used correctly.
</p><p>
"New technologies take some time to learn," Scott Partridge, Monsanto's vice president for global strategy, told the
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/business/monsanto-dicamba-weed-killer.html?_r=0" target="_blank">New York Times</a>. "Thus far, what we've seen in the field, the vast majority, more than three-quarters of them, has been due to not following the label."
</p><p>
But problems with dicamba remain. Farmers their Catch-22 situation to the Times:
</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">
Some farmers say they face a difficult choice—either buy the new genetically modified seeds or run the risk that their soybeans would be damaged more by a neighbor's spraying of weed killers than by the weeds themselves.
</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">
"If you don't buy Xtend, you're going to be hurt," said Michael Kemp, a Missouri farmer, referring to the brand name of Monsanto's seeds.
</p><p>
<span></span>Even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is mulling limits on the dicamba next year and is consulting with state officials and experts, including ones in Arkansas.
</p><p>
<span></span>"[EPA] is very concerned with what has occurred and transpired in 2017, and we're committed to taking appropriate action for the 2018 growing season with an eye towards ensuring that [dicamba] technology is available...for growers, but that it is used responsibly," <a href="https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/crops/article/2017/09/20/state-pesticide-regulators-face-2018" target="_blank">said</a> Reuben Baris, who works at the EPA's Office of Pesticide Program.
</p><p>
<span></span>The Arkansas plant board's regulatory changes will now be subject to a 30-day public comment period followed by a public hearing on November 8. The proposed rule will then be forwarded to the Executive Subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council for final approval.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="4c209" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="YPKSMR1576662468"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="910994054816641024" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Public hearing for proposed dicamba regulations prohibiting use in AR from April 16 - Oct 31 scheduled for Nov 8:… https://t.co/F7NRJHu5U6</div> — Arkansas Department of Agriculture (@Arkansas Department of Agriculture)<a href="https://twitter.com/ARDeptofAgricul/statuses/910994054816641024">1506032882.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Survey participant Vilicus Farms is a first generation, organic, dryland crop farm in northern Hill County, Montana. Anna Jones-Crabtree / Vilicus Farms / Flickr
An overwhelming majority of surveyed farmers are concerned about the proposed Bayer-Monsanto merger and believe it will have a negative impact on independent farmers and farming communities, a recent poll has found.
<p>"We urge the Department of Justice to listen to farmers and the more than 1 million Americans calling on the department to block the Bayer-Monsanto merger. The only answer to this merger is NO," said Tiffany Finck-Haynes, senior food futures campaigner at <a href="https://foe.org/" target="_blank">Friends of the Earth</a>. </p><p>According to the poll, of the farmers who responded:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>93.7 percent are concerned about the proposed merger of Bayer and Monsanto (82.8 percent are very concerned/10.9 percent somewhat concerned).</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"><li>93.7 percent of farmers are concerned that the proposed Bayer-Monsanto merger will negatively impact independent farmers and farming communities (83.9 percent are very concerned/9.8 percent somewhat concerned).</li></ul><p>The farmer's top three concerns of the merger are:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>91.9 percent of farmers are concerned that the merged company will use its dominance in one product to push sales of other products (79.6 percent very concerned/12.3 percent somewhat concerned).</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"><li>91.7 percent of farmers are concerned that Bayer/Monsanto will control data about farm practices (79.5 percent very concerned/12.2 percent somewhat concerned).</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"><li>89.0 percent of farmers think the merger will result in increased pressure for chemically dependent farming (77.1 percent very concerned/11.9 percent somewhat concerned).</li></ul><div>"This survey underscores what we've been hearing from our farm family members for decades—that overwhelming consolidation has substantially eliminated competition in the marketplace," said Roger Johnson, president of National Farmers Union. "Four or five firms dictate the prices that farmers pay for their inputs. Family farmers deserve fair prices, choices in what they plant, and the type of market competition that incentivizes firms to compete and innovate for their business. A Bayer-Monsanto merger stands to move each of these factors in the wrong direction, and that is away from competitive markets."</div><p>The poll also found a high level of concern amongst farmers surveyed that the merged company will control data about farm practices, will increase prices, diminish quality, choice and seed varieties including availability of regionally adaptive seed, which farmers identified as critical given increasing <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/">climate variability</a>.</p><p>"This merger will further concentrate ownership of our seed supply, inevitably leading to fewer seed variety options in the marketplace, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/">less genetic diversity</a> in our fields, and higher seed prices for farmers," said Kiki Hubbard of Organic Seed Alliance. "Seed prices have nearly quadrupled in the past 20 years, even though yield and the prices farmers receive for their crops have not. History shows us that mergers of this magnitude also reduce rather than inspire innovation."</p><p>The new poll, fielded by a coalition of farm groups, comes as the U.S. Department of Justice is reviewing the merger between <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals">chemical</a> giant Bayer (NYSE:BAYN) and agrochemical giant Monsanto (NYSE: MON). If the Bayer-Monsanto merger is approved, the new company would be the world's largest vegetable seed company, world's largest cottonseed company, world's largest manufacturer and seller of herbicides, and the world's largest owner of intellectual property/patents for herbicide tolerant traits.</p><p>"The chemical-intensive agriculture these corporations promote has given rise to superweeds and a reliance on even more potent, and potentially dangerous, chemicals," said Farm Aid communications director Jennifer Fahy. "The proposed merger of Monsanto and Bayer further strengthens their ability to threaten the development of a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sustainability" target="_self">sustainable</a> food system that supports independent family farmers and rural economies, meets the growing demand of concerned eaters, and protects our soil and water. If we care about our food and our planet, the time to enforce antitrust laws is now!"</p><p>A white paper, prepared by the Konkurrenz Group, examines why the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division should not accept Bayer's proposed divestiture and behavioral remedies. Relying on the survey findings and other evidence, the white paper examines why the likely complex behavioral and structural remedies will not likely restore competition in the seed, trait and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides">pesticide</a> industries.</p><p>"A merger between Bayer and Monsanto would be a massive threat to food supply and farmers around the world," said Anne Isakowitsch, campaign manager at SumOfUs. "Now that Monsanto and Bayer are closer than ever to this potentially disastrous takeover of our global agricultural system, we must all step up our efforts and speak out. The future of farming and food safety depend on it. This deal has the capability to usher in a new era of sterile crops soaked in dangerous pesticides around the world; we simply cannot allow this to happen."</p><p>The unprecedented poll of farmer's opinions was conducted between Jan. 26 and Feb. 12, 2018 by a coalition of farm groups who collected 957 responses from farmers in 48 states. Cumulatively, the farmers who responded to the poll cultivate close to 2 million acres, and represent all sectors of farming.</p><p>The following organizations administered the survey to their members or networks: Agricultural Justice Project; California Farmers Guild; Center for Rural Affairs; City Seed; Community Alliance with Family Farmers; Domestic Fair Trade Association; Farmworker Association of Florida; Family Farm Defenders; Farm Aid; Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance; Farmworker Association of Florida; Florida Organic Growers; Friends of Family Farmers; Hawai'i Farmers Union United; Hawai'i Tropical Fruit Growers; Iowa Farmers Union; International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements; Kansas Rural Center; Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association; Minnesota Farmers Union; Missouri Coalition for the Environment; National Family Farm Coalition; National Farmers Union; National Latino Farmers and Ranchers Trade Association; Natural Born Tillers; New Britain ROOTS; Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Connecticut; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Massachusetts; Organic Farmers Association; Organic Farming Research Foundation; Organic Seed Alliance; Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association; Organization for Competitive Markets; Our Family Farms; Pesticide Action Network North America; Practical Farmers of Iowa; Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund; United Stockgrowers of America; Rural Coalition; Rural Vermont; Sustainable Food Center; Texas Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association; The Cornucopia Institute; Vilicus Farms; Western Organization of Resource Councils; and the Women Food and Agriculture Network.</p><p>The full results and white paper, which demonstrates that the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division should reject Bayer's proposed divestitures and behavioral remedies and say NO to this merger, are <a href="https://1bps6437gg8c169i0y1drtgz-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018-FINAL-White-Paper-with-PAN-3-7-2018.pdf" target="_blank">available here</a>.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="1506b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3CWD981576662578"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="900494146745618432" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">EU Launches In-Depth Investigation Into Bayer-Monsanto $66 Billion Merger https://t.co/F3mwXW8ZNT @food_democracy @justlabelit</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/900494146745618432">1503529509.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Bayer-Monsanto Merger a '5-Alarm Threat to Our Food Supply' ›
- Seeds Must Be Publicly Owned, Food System Activists Urge - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
By George Kimbrell
One year down, three to go. Trump and his enablers are hell bent on destroying or selling to the highest bidder the federal agencies they are charged with running in the public interest. In the past year, they have been unrelenting in their attacks on food safety, environmental protections, climate change, government transparency and so many other values we hold dear. We are in the midst of the most significant environmental and public health challenges imaginable. We're no longer dreading the harm the Trump administration could do to our health and environment—we're living it.
<p style="">If you watched the State of the Union address last week, you may have picked out a common thread: gutting regulations—many of them crucial to protecting our food and environment—for the sake of higher corporate profits. Trump's boast that "we have cut more regulations in our first year than any other administration in history," may be good if you're Monsanto or Exxon, but it's dangerous for you and me and our families.</p><p style="">Let's take a look back at Trump's first year in office. What is the State of the Food and Environment Union? Here are just a few (of the many) ways the administration is undermining the food system, public health and the environment.</p><p><strong>1. Trump and GMOs</strong></p><p style="">At the wishes of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/big-ag">Big Ag</a> and their deep pockets, the Trump administration is keen on approving new GMO plants, fish, insects and animals as fast as possible, with as little oversight as possible. These actions will result in new risks to our food system and environment, not to mention millions more pounds of <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/glyphosate-faq_64013.pdf" target="_blank">cancer-causing pesticides</a> poured onto our crops and sprayed near schools, the extinction of native salmon species, the disastrous collapse of pollinators, harm to children and much more.</p><p style="">In two current lawsuits, Center for Food Safety (CFS) sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force it to rescind approvals allowing dangerous pesticides to be used in new ways, over-the-top of genetically engineered (GE) crops resistant to them. Monsanto's Round-Up Ready crops have become obsolete because of "superweeds" resistant to its main ingredient, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">glyphosate</a>. In response, the chemical companies are peddling new GE crops that can tolerate older, even more toxic herbicides, namely <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4744/public-interest-groups-farmers-file-lawsuit-challenging-monsantos-toxic-pesticides" target="_blank">dicamba</a> (produced by Monsanto) and <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4888/twice-the-toxicity-farmers-and-public-interest-groups-sue-epa-for-approving-dows-deadly-pesticide-combo" target="_blank">2,4-D</a> (a chemical compound in "Agent Orange"). The approval and release of these GE crop systems—pesticides and GE seeds resistant to them—will result in hundreds of millions of more pounds of toxic pesticides being sprayed on our food.</p><p style="">Meanwhile, Trump is delaying long-overdue disclosure of all GMO ingredients in foods, required by federal law starting July 2018. Last August, CFS <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/5061/victory-usda-releases-gmo-labeling-study" target="_blank">sued and won</a> a case against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) when missed the first labeling deadline. (The administration immediately relented and complied with the law 12 days later.)</p><p style="">The Trump administration also has delayed new rules for the regulation of GMOs, <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/5134/trump-administration-pulls-new-biotech-rules" target="_blank">withdrawing proposed updated regulations</a> late last year, despite being long overdue and urgently needed. This was not an accident: Recently, in a speech at the American Farm Bureau Federation, President Trump declared that he is "streamlining regulations that have blocked cutting-edge biotechnology—setting free our farmers to innovate, thrive, and grow. Oh, are you happy you voted for me. You are so lucky that I gave you that privilege.'"</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="364205e49fee1e85ff38a0e61451ac50"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fsLcxWbMZpk?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
</p>
<p style=""><strong>2. Trump and Pesticides</strong><br></p><p style="">In March, President Trump's U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4901/trump-epa-approves-continued-use-of-notorious-brain-damaging-pesticide" target="_blank">reneged on a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos</a>, a pesticide that's known to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/us/politics/epa-insecticide-chlorpyrifos.html?_r=0&mtrref=undefined&gwh=06938DE69DA4ACF3D14A7DE93076DB94&gwt=pay" target="_blank">harm kids' brain development</a>, and chose instead to protect the profits of Dow Chemical, the maker of the pesticide. And in November, a hidden bill being pushed by the pesticide industry was obtained by CFS that would <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/5143/industry-driven-bill-guts-federal-safeguards-protecting-endangered-species-from-toxic-pesticides" target="_blank">dismantle Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections against deadly pesticides</a>.</p><p style="">Two of Trump's cabinet nominees—Michael Dourson and Sam Clovis—were so toxic that they were forced to withdraw their nominations instead of being rejected in Congress. At his committee hearing, Dourson's <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/5182/victory-monsanto-shill-dourson-withdraws-after-public-outcry" target="_blank">questionable track record</a> and refusal to commit to recusing himself from working on chemicals he's been paid by industry to "study" in the past led Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) to tell Dourson, "You're not just an outlier on this science, you're outrageous in how far from the mainstream of science you actually are. It's pretty clear you have never met a chemical you didn't like."</p><p style="">Sam Clovis <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/5130/victory-sam-clovis-withdraws-from-usda-consideration" target="_blank">withdrew</a> from consideration for Chief Scientist at USDA after being roundly criticized by Congress and the public for being an admitted climate change "skeptic," saying that climate science is "junk science" and "not proven." To make matters worse, Clovis has a history of racism, sexism and homophobia.</p><p style=""><strong>3. Trump and Food Safety</strong></p><p style="">In March, Trump announced billions in dollars of <a href="https://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-agriculture/2017/03/trump-wants-cuts-to-usda-fda-2017-funding-219458" target="_blank">cuts to USDA and FDA</a>, undermining their ability to keep our food safe. In November, the Trump administration <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/5141/food-safety-groups-oppose-trump-administration-delay-of-key-produce-safety-requirements" target="_blank">proposed a delay</a> in enforcement of urgently needed rules aimed at keeping produce free from fecal contamination. Contaminated irrigation water is a major cause of foodborne illness outbreaks. In 2006, a major outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 linked to Dole baby spinach was eventually traced back to water contaminated with cattle and wild pig feces. Foodborne illness had become a full-blown epidemic, affecting 1 in 6 Americans.</p><p style="">In response to that and many other foodborne illness outbreaks connected to food such as peanuts, fruit and vegetables, Congress <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/2919/victory-your-food-will-be-safer-thanks-to-center-for-food-safety-lawsuit" target="_blank">passed the landmark 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)</a>, which includes requirements that the Food and Drug Administration develop rules governing produce safety, including the water quality used to grow, harvest and pack produce. From 2012-2014, CFS previously challenged FDA's unlawful delay in drafting and completion of all of FSMA's six major rule-makings, including the produce rule, <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/308/food-safety/blog/2954/protecting-public-health-one-case-at-a-time" target="_blank">succeeding in having all the rules completed</a> by court-ordered deadlines.</p><p style="">The rule allowed growers to phase in water quality and testing requirements between 2018 and 2022, depending in part on the size of the farm. However, now under the new proposed Trump administration delay, growers would not have to test water for E. coli contamination until between 2022 and 2024—11 to 13 years after FSMA's passage, endangering food safety.</p><p style=""><strong>4. Trump and Factory Farms</strong></p><p style="">Many of today's farms are actually large industrial facilities, not family farms with green pastures and red barns that most Americans imagine. The operation of these <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/factory-farming">factory farms</a> has <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/307/animal-factories" target="_blank">little to no regard for the environment, animal welfare or food safety</a>, and they often put the health of consumers and rural communities at risk for the sake of profit. Yet, the EPA, the agency charged with protecting our environment and public health, made a third attempt to further delay the hazardous substance release reporting requirements for industrial-scale livestock operations (concentrated animal feeding operations or CAFOs).</p><p style="">In November, CFS joined other groups to <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/5142/public-interest-groups-oppose-epas-third-attempt-to-shield-cafos-from-disclosing-hazardous-pollution" target="_blank">oppose this egregious action</a> that would allow these facilities to keep operating in a way that sees health-harming pollution as status quo. We asked the court to make it clear that EPA's "preliminary guidance" is illegal because it represents the agency's third attempt to hide information from the public about CAFO releases of dangerous pollution, particularly ammonia and hydrogen sulfide.</p><p style="">Sonny Perdue, Trump's pick to head the USDA, is also no stranger to putting people's health and animal welfare <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/blog/4857/does-sonny-perdue-know-peanuts-about-food-safety" target="_blank">at risk</a>. Earlier this year, inspectors detected <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4865/bird-flu-at-tyson-facility-underscores-need-for-more-organic-practices" target="_blank">bird flu outbreaks</a> in a Tennessee-based poultry breeding operation contracted by Tyson Foods, Inc., the largest chicken meat producer in the U.S. This event demonstrates that confining birds indoors for their entire lives in no way safeguards against disease. The pathogen responsible for bird flu becomes more lethal in large, over-crowded, confined, indoor farming operations like those contracted by food giant Tyson.</p><p style="">Preventing these deadly outbreaks requires reforming how chickens are raised. Strategies implemented by many organic chicken producers, for example—such as access to the outdoors, low densities, and adequate lighting—are necessary to raise chickens and other food animals in the most healthy, safe and sustainable manner.</p><p style="">USDA also is charged with overseeing the National Organic Standards, for labeling organically grown food. Yet rather than taking steps to prevent future outbreaks and ensure higher animal welfare standards for organic, <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/blog/5021/enemies-of-ge-labeling-and-animal-welfare-aim-their-sights-at-organic-integrity" target="_blank">USDA gave in to Big "Organic" Poultry</a> and in December announced plans to withdraw previously finalized organic animal welfare rules that had been the culmination of almost 15 years. Rather than listen to the public who have concerns about public health and animal welfare, USDA sided with large-scale producers who fear the new rules will expose their less-than-organic practices.</p><p style=""><strong>5. Trump and Oceans</strong></p><p style="">Livestock and poultry are not the only animals living in factory farm conditions. Our oceans are the new frontier. Commercial fishing and industrial aquaculture are polluting waterways as well as leading some species toward distinction. Despite a <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/5037/trump-administration-denies-pacific-bluefin-tuna-endangered-species-act-protection" target="_blank">97 percent decline in population</a>, in August the Trump administration denied endangered species status of Pacific Bluefin tuna. It's not enough for people to stop eating Bluefin tuna; it needs a protected status to prevent it from being fished. The Trump administration would rather side with large-scale fisheries than protect our natural world.</p><p style="">The Gulf of Mexico sees its fair share of pollution resulting in growing annual dead zones from industrial agriculture runoff down the Mississippi River as well as oil spills. Yet, The Trump administration wants to <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/5066/groups-move-lawsuit-forward-against-industrial-fish-farming-regulations" target="_blank">pile on the pollution by allowing factory fish farms in the Gulf</a>, which would be the first time ever for aquaculture in U.S. federal waters, anywhere. Industrial aquaculture will harm Gulf fishing communities and ocean ecosystems.</p><p style="">Last year, CFS filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration for <a href="https://www.alternet.org/food/us-has-approved-industrial-aquaculture-deep-offshore-waters-first-time-and-its-huge-step" target="_blank">violating our core fisheries and environmental laws in attempting to set up this unprecedented industrial activity in our ocean waters</a>. This is not just happening in the Gulf, but also in the Pacific Northwest. CFS is also in court, in another case filed last year, to <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/blog/5043/were-taking-the-trump-administration-to-court-to-protect-washingtons-environment" target="_blank">stop a commercial shellfish aquaculture permit approved in Washington State</a> by Trump's U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the same Army Corps that approved the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline). This irresponsible permit approval would allow a massive expansion of this already large industry, with no protections for wildlife, water quality, ecosystems or people.</p><p style="">Oh, and remember Trump's GMO "streamlining"? It's not just plants: the first ever GE animal for food, a genetically engineered salmon is currently under court review. However, that case provided a major win for those of us fighting for transparency and accountability within the Trump administration in late January. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/5222/court-rejects-trump-administration-secrecy-in-genetically-engineered-salmon-case" target="_blank">denied the FDA's attempt to hide thousands of pages of key government documents</a> revealing how the agency arrived at its controversial approval. The court order rejected the Trump administration's position that it can unilaterally decide which documents to provide and which to withhold from public and court review.</p><p style="">A broad coalition of commercial and recreational fisheries interests, environmentalists and tribes, led by CFS, challenged the GE salmon approval in 2016. Although FDA considered the application for the GE salmon for nearly two decades, the agency's record for court review was paltry, including mostly documents already publicly available on their website and only four agency emails. FDA refused to provide thousands of critical documents about how and why it approved the GE salmon.</p><p style=""><strong>6. Trump and Climate</strong></p><p style="">One of Trump's first acts in office was to <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4973/trumps-decision-to-pull-the-us-out-of-paris-climate-agreement-threatens-global-food-security" target="_blank">pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement</a>. President Trump's decision to pull out from the 2015 Paris climate agreement was a major setback for the treaty, and for our ability to combat the climate crisis. The U.S. is the world's second-largest carbon polluter after China.</p><p style="">In March, President Trump signed an Executive Order that <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4896/trump-signs-away-action-on-climate-change-impacts" target="_blank">drastically rolls back progress made</a> by the Obama administration to tackle the environmental, economic and public health impacts of global climate change. The order specifically set into motion the unravelling of the Clean Power Plan, which was intended to cut pollution from coal-fired power plants and create new jobs in the renewable energy sector. Trump's coal-focused energy program as outlined in the order will also make it nearly impossible for the U.S. to meet climate solution commitments set by the 2105 Paris agreement.</p><p>The Executive Order also revoked the requirement that federal agencies analyze climate change impacts in all their decision-making. If President's Trump exclamation in his State of the Union address, "we have ended the war on American energy, and we have ended the war on fuel, clean coal" are only the latest signal that his administration's attacks on our climate and environmental laws are far from over.</p><p><strong>Your Voice Has Power</strong></p><p style="">If the first year of the Trump administration is any indication, we clearly have our work cut out for us. <a href="https://www.alternet.org/environment/trump-takes-office-its-important-remember-constitution-protects-public-interest-we-all" target="_blank">The public interest, which should be government's highest duty, is in exile</a>. Government agencies are being unduly influenced by Big Ag's lobbying and money, if not simply controlled directly by those doing their bidding, the foxes in the henhouse. Now is when nonprofit organizations are needed more than ever. CFS will continue to watchdog the Trump administration and challenge the agencies that are supposed to oversee our food system. But you are the most important voice for Congress and the Trump administration to hear.</p><p style="">Here are a few important actions you can take right now:</p><p style=""><strong>1. <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/actions/5013/tell-the-trump-administration-that-gmo-labeling-must-be-clear-and-on-the-package" target="_blank">Tell the Trump Administration that GMO labeling must be clear and on the package</a></strong></p><p style="">Make sure the Trump administration issues GMO labeling regulations that requires the labeling of ALL GMOs, and does so on food packages, for all Americans, not only through discriminatory and secondary "QR code" smart phone disclosure.</p><p style=""><strong>2. <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/actions/5148/protect-endangered-species-from-pesticides" target="_blank">Protect Endangered Species from Pesticides</a></strong></p><p style="">The pesticide industry is pushing a bill that threatens the survival of endangered species. Tell Congress to oppose any legislative attempt to weaken ESA protections for species affected by pesticides!</p><p style=""><strong>3. <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/actions/4902/tell-the-senate-ban-chlorpyrifos" target="_blank">Tell the Senate: Ban chlorpyrifos</a></strong></p><p style="">While Trump's EPA put corporate profits over public health, Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico (D) has introduced a bill that would outlaw chlorpyrifos. The bill is called the Protect Children, Farmers and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act of 2017 (S. 1624). Tell your senators to protect our kids and ban this toxic pesticide once and for all.</p><p style=""><em>George Kimbrell is the legal director at the <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/" target="_blank">Center for Food Safety</a>.</em></p><p style=""> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate </em><em><a href="https://www.alternet.org/food/real-state-union-6-ways-trump-bad-food-health-and-environment" target="_blank">AlterNet</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Scientists Skip Monsanto Dicamba Summit as Controversies Mount Over Damaging Herbicide
27 September 2017
Popular
Soybean pod and seed damage caused by dicamba. jwolf7447/Instagram
Several U.S. weed scientists have turned down an invitation to attend Monsanto's dicamba summit near St. Louis this week, as controversies unfold over the company's new Xtend Crop System, Reuters reported.
Experts have linked the highly volatile and drift-prone herbicide to the damage of 3.1 million acres of crops that are not genetically engineered to resist the powerful chemical. Arkansas, which has logged the most dicamba-related complaints, is a step away from banning the chemical (again) next summer. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also consulting with state officials and scientists, including ones in Arkansas, on potential regulations.
<p>
According to Reuters, the agrichemical giant is hosting the summit to "win backing" from the scientists in "efforts to convince regulators the product is safe to use." At the summit, the company plans to present data claiming that user error is behind the crop injuries.
</p><p>
Weed scientists from Arkansas and Missouri—Monsanto's home state—are reportedly skipping the summit.
</p><p>
University of Missouri plant sciences professor
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-dicamba-2468298141.html">Kevin Bradley</a>, who has <a href="https://ipm.missouri.edu/IPCM/2017/8/Update-on-Dicamba-related-Injury-Investigations-and-Estimates-of-Injured-Soybean-Acreage/" target="_blank">extensively logged</a> the nation's massive swath of dicamba-related damage, told Reuters that he is not attending the summit because he does not think Monsanto will discuss volatilization.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1abca730db66057933f4162fa7f66073"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/csasYJkE3j4?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
</p><p>Monsanto's vice president of global strategy Scott Partridge told Reuters that this will be the company's largest summit on dicamba so far and at least half of the 60 people invited plan to attend.
</p><p>
University of Arkansas professor Jason Norsworthy has also declined to present a summary of national drift and volatility research at the summit.
</p><p style="">
Notably, after an
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/arkansas-dicamba-ban-2478688944.html" target="_blank">Arkansas task force</a> recommended that the state bar dicamba spraying next year, Monsanto <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pesticide-monsanto/monsanto-fights-to-sell-arkansas-farmers-herbicide-linked-to-crop-damage-idUSKCN1BI2RD" target="_blank">filed a petition</a> questioning the objectivity of Norsworthy and fellow Arkansas weed expert Ford Baldwin due to their supposed connections to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bayer">Bayer</a> Crop Science, which makes the competing weedkiller glufosinate. An ad from Bayer's LibertyLink product featured a quote from Norsworthy, "The next best technology is already available in the LibertyLink system."
</p><p>
Tom Barber and Bob Scott, who are also University of Arkansas experts, will skip the meeting as well.
</p><p style="">
"With Monsanto questioning of the integrity of our science, we felt it was best not to participate," university spokeswoman Mary Hightower told Reuters.
</p><p>
Dr. Mark Cochran, vice president-agriculture for the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture,
<a href="http://www.agwatchnetwork.com/developing-university-arkansas-responds-monsanto-petition-dicamba/" target="_blank">defended</a> Norsworthy.
</p><p>
"There are several points in the petition we need to address immediately: First, Norsworthy's findings are anything but an outlier. It is consistent with research work in other states, including that of Kevin Bradley in Missouri, Tom Mueller and Larry Steckel in Tennessee, and elsewhere," he wrote.
</p><p>
"Second, none of our researchers has ever endorsed any product, but sometimes companies use our public comments and statements without our permission."
</p><p>
University of Tennessee weed scientist Tom Mueller will be attending. He told Reuters he plans to pay his own way to the event even though Monsanto said it would foot travel costs. But he noted that he was skeptical Monsanto would engage in discussions.
</p><p>
"I think it's just going to be a monologue," he said.
</p><p style="">
The controversy surrounding dicamba
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-lawsuits-dicamba-drift-2265408929.html" target="_blank">started last year</a> when Monsanto decided to sell its Xtend cotton and soybean seeds several growing seasons before getting federal approval for the corresponding herbicide. Without having the proper herbicide, cotton and soybean growers were suspected of illegally spraying older versions of dicamba onto their crops and inadvertently damaging nearby non-target crops due to drift and volatilization. Off-target crops are often left <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/missouri-peach-farm-sues-monsanto-dicamba-drift-2133507960.html" target="_blank">cupped and distorted</a> when exposed to the chemical. Monsanto, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dupont" target="_blank">DuPont</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/basf" target="_blank">BASF</a> SE now sell new federally approved dicamba formulations that the companies say are less drift-prone and volatile than older versions when used correctly.
</p><p>
<span></span>Monsanto developed its Xtend system to address "<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/superweeds" target="_blank">superweeds</a>" that have grown resistant to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_blank">glyphosate</a>, the main ingredient in the company's former bread-and-butter, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/roundup" target="_blank">Roundup</a>. Xtend crops are <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pesticides-epa-exclusive/exclusive-epa-eyes-limits-for-agricultural-chemical-linked-to-crop-damage-idUSKCN1BG1GT" target="_blank">expected</a> to expand across 80 million acres in the U.S., creating a $400-$800 million opportunity for the company.</p><p>The world's largest seedmaker has been accused of having staffers <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-cancer-roundup-coverup-2317043832.html" target="_blank">ghost-write favorable studies</a> about glyphosate that federal regulators used to determine that the chemical does not cause cancer. </p>
Read More
Show Less
www.youtube.com
The herbicide dicamba, which has been linked to devastating crop damage around the U.S., could be banned in Arkansas next year.
The Arkansas Dicamba Task Force has recommended a cut-off date for the use of the highly drift-prone and volatile herbicide by next April 15 for the 2018 season.
<p style="">
The state agriculture department <a href="http://www.aad.arkansas.gov/arkansas-dicamba-information-updates" target="_blank">has logged</a> 950 misuse complaints in 26 counties as of August 23.
</p><p>
Although dicamba has been around for decades, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto">Monsanto</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dupont">DuPont</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/basf">BASF</a> SE sells new formulations of the product that is supposedly less drift-prone and volatile than older versions when used correctly. The herbicide can be applied to crops genetically engineered by Monsanto to resist the herbicide. But off-target fruits, vegetables and other crops are often left <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/missouri-peach-farm-sues-monsanto-dicamba-drift-2133507960.html" target="_blank">cupped and distorted</a> when exposed to the chemical.
</p><p>
Weed specialists suspect that the thousands of crop damage reports arising across the country's farm belt are linked to dicamba exposure. Roughly 3.1 million acres have been impacted as of Aug. 10, <a href="http://www.arfb.com/news/2017/aug/21/market-briefs-august-16-2017/" target="_blank">according</a> to Kevin Bradley, an associate professor in the University of Missouri's Division of Plant Sciences.
</p><p>
<span></span>A <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJStFHPyb9s" target="_blank">video</a> from the Arkansas Farm Bureau describes how dicamba "has become the most difficult issue the Arkansas State Plant Board and University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture weed scientists have faced in years."
</p><p>
Arkansas temporarily banned the use and sale of dicamba last month. Missouri and Tennessee took similar actions.
</p><p>
The issues surrounding dicamba <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-lawsuits-dicamba-drift-2265408929.html">surfaced last year</a> when Monsanto sold its Xtend cotton and soybean seeds several growing seasons before getting federal approval for the corresponding herbicide. Without having the proper herbicide, cotton and soybean growers were suspected of illegally spraying older versions of dicamba onto their crops and inadvertently damaging nearby non-target crops due to drift.
</p><p>
Monsanto developed its Xtend system to address "<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/superweeds" target="_blank">superweeds</a>" that have grown resistant to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_blank">glyphosate</a>, the main ingredient in the company's former bread-and-butter, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/roundup" target="_blank">Roundup</a>.
</p><p style="">
<span></span>The St. Louis-based seed-maker told <a href="http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2017/08/27/462508.htm" target="_blank">Reuters</a> that the task force's recommendation will put Arkansas farmers at a disadvantage to those in other states. Spokeswoman Charla Lord explained that Monsanto is in talks with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which "is interested in achieving national uniformity with dicamba regulation in order to avoid a state patchwork." BASF and DuPont did not provide Reuters with comments.
</p><p>
The task force also made two other recommendations, according to <a href="https://www.agrimarketing.com/s/112063" target="_blank">BrownfieldAgNews</a>:
</p><ul class="ee-ul">
<li>Fix the regulations as they are now concerning penalties for violators of dicamba misuse to remove the requirement for proof of damage. Misuse should constitute a violation. </li>
<li>Request more independent/university testing before new products come to market (seed and chemical). And the entire "package" must be ready at once.</li>
</ul><p>
Arkansas' governor and state agencies will review the recommendations before making a decision. A timeline not yet been disclosed.
</p>
Read More
Show Less
Healthy soy leaves (left) compared to soy leaves with evidence of dicamba exposure (right). Photo credit: Flickr/University of Wisconsin
Farmers across 10 states are suing Monsanto, alleging that the agrochemical company sold dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybean crops knowing that illegal spraying of the highly volatile and drift-prone herbicide would be inevitable.
Steven W. Landers, et al v. Monsanto Company was filed on Jan. 26 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern Division. Kansas City law firm Randles & Splittgerber filed on behalf of Steven and Deloris "Dee" Landers and similarly harmed farmers in 10 states—Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.
Illegal Herbicide Use on GMO Crops Causing Massive Damage to Fruit, Vegetable and Soybean Farms - EcoWatch https://t.co/T9AhgaKT3V @gmo917— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1472089811.0
The farmers seek damages for claims including negligence, strict liability, failure to warn, conspiracy, disgorgement of profits and punitive damages.
According to a press release from the law firm, Steven and Dee Landers operate their family owned farms in New Madrid County, Missouri, and have been in business since 1976. The Landers claim that their farms have been greatly damaged by the illegal spraying of dicamba on Monsanto's Roundup Ready Xtend crops, which are genetically engineered to resist dicamba and Roundup (aka glyphosate).
Bev Randles of Randles & Splittgerber told EcoWatch that the Landers' 1,550-acre farm primarily grows soybeans and corn. In 2016, they experienced dicamba damage on more than half of their crops and acreage, resulting in a reduction of their yields in approximately the same percentage, especially with respect to their soybeans.
The farmers in the lawsuit allege that the biotech giant knowingly marketed its Xtend cotton and soybean seeds to farmers without any safe herbicide. The lawsuit claims that the company knew the only option purchasers would have to protect crops grown from those seeds would be to illegally spray dicamba to protect the crops from weeds.
"Monsanto chose to sell these seeds before they could be safely cultivated," said Randles. "Monsanto's own advertising repeatedly describes its Xtend seeds and its accompanying herbicide as a 'system' intended to be used together. But when Monsanto failed to get approval to sell the herbicide, it recklessly chose to go ahead and sell the seeds regardless."
"The inevitable result was farmers throughout the country used illegal and dangerous herbicides to try to protect the Xtend seeds. That inappropriate use of herbicides, which Monsanto knew would occur and encouraged, decimated hundreds of thousands of acres of crops nationwide," Randles added.
Monsanto's rollout of its Xtend system has been marked by controversy ever since the company sold its Xtend cotton and soybeans several growing seasons before getting federal approval for the corresponding herbicide.
Bollgard II XtendFlex cotton was introduced in 2015 and Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans was introduced in 2016. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) only approved the corresponding herbicide, XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology, in late 2016. The new weedkiller is a combination of dicamba and glyphosate and is meant to address the proliferation of "superweeds" that have grown resistant to glyphosate.
EPA Approval of Monsanto's Dicamba Will 'Massively Increase Use of Toxic Pesticides' on GMO Crops via @EcoWatch https://t.co/9q40GlI6pL— Organic Consumers (@Organic Consumers)1478821972.0
Without having the proper herbicide, cotton and soybean growers were suspected of illegally spraying older versions of dicamba onto their crops and inadvertently damaging nearby non-target crops due to drift.