Note to Hygeia Analytics Readers — I sent the following May 13, 2017 letter to individuals in the Sherman County government and the local weed control district. These individuals are responsible for acting on an almost unbelievable new policy, given April Fool’s day is long past.
Sherman County, located in north-central Oregon near the great Columbia River, is grassland and wheat field country (see featured photo). Local government officials have apparently re-interpreted a long-standing ordinance calling for the control of noxious weeds on private lands. Now, apparently, the new interpretation authorizes the county to mandate noxious weed eradication via herbicide applications.
And in order to accomplish this essentially unattainable goal, the county is threatening to require mandatory herbicide spraying on private farmland, including a 2,000-acre certified organic farm in the County. If the landowner does not carry out the required spraying, the county will do it and bill the landowner, and if he/she does not pay, all sorts of other punitive actions could be taken, leading eventually to even the loss of the land.
I searched the Sherman County website and could find no details or language setting forth the logic for the new interpretation, or what it actually requires and penalties in the event of non-compliance. I learned about this in a blog written by Darren Smith entitled “Oregon County Mandates 2,000 Acre Organic Farm Sprayed With Chemical Herbicides.”
The blog contains a link to a You Tube posting by David Cross, the marketing manager of Azure, an organic food company and distributor based in Oregon. The 2,000-acre organic farm grows wheat and other commodities for Azure. The landowner has received a notice from the Sherman County government that a court order may be issued as early as May 22nd mandating that the farm be sprayed with one of three herbicides.
I do not know any of the people involved in this unprecedented turn of events, but as a concerned Oregonian, I shared the following thoughts and warnings with officials in Sherman County and the Oregon Department of Agriculture.
May 13, 2017
Tom McCoy
Joe Dabulskis
Sherman County Commissioners
Lauren Hernandez
Administrative Assistant
Sherman County, Oregon
Rod Asher
Sherman Country Weed District Supervisor
Moro, Oregon
Alexis Taylor
Director
Oregon Department of Agriculture
Dear Ms. Hernandez el al:
I live in Wallowa County. I learned today of the recent, dramatic change in the Sherman County noxious weed control program and the plan to forcibly spray a 2,000-acre organic farm in the county.
Over a long career, I have studied herbicide use and efficacy, public and private weed control efforts, the linkages between herbicide use and the emergence and spread of resistant weeds, and the public health and environmental impacts of herbicide use and other weed management strategies.
I served for six years, along with fellow Oregonian Barry Bushue, past-president of the Oregon Farm Bureau, on the USDA’s AC 21 Agricultural Biotechnology Advisory Committee. Issues arising from herbicide use were a frequent topic of discussion during our Committee’s deliberations.
I have published multiple scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals on glyphosate, its human health risks, and the impact of genetically engineered crops on overall herbicide use and the spread of resistant weeds. In a separate email, I will forward you copies of my published research relevant to the use of herbicides, and glyphosate in particular.
The notion that Sherman County can eradicate noxious weeds by blanket herbicide spraying is deeply misguided. I cannot imagine a single, reputable university weed scientist in the State supporting the idea that an herbicide-based noxious weed eradication program would work (i.e., eradicate the target weeds) in Oregon, or any other state. To hear another opinion from one of the State’s most widely known and respected weed scientists, I urge the County to consult with Dr. Carol Mallory-Smith, Oregon State University.
I also doubt any corporate official working for Monsanto, the manufacturer of glyphosate (Roundup), would agree or endorse the notion that any long-established weed in Sherman County, noxious or otherwise, could be eradicated via blanket spraying with Roundup, or for that matter any combination of herbicides.
Before proceeding with any county-mandated herbicide use justified by the goal of eradication, I urge the County to seek concurrence from the herbicide manufacturer that they believe use of their product will likely eradicate your named, target, noxious weeds.
Given that almost no one with experience in weed management believes that any long-established weed, noxious or otherwise, can be eradicated with herbicides, one wonders why the County has adopted such a draconian change in its noxious weed control program. I can think of two plausible motivations – a desire by companies and individuals involved in noxious weed control activities, via selling or applying herbicides, to increase business volume and profits; or, an effort to reduce or eliminate acreage in the Country that is certified organic.
Weeds are classified as noxious when they prone to spread, are difficult to control, and pose a public health or economic threat to citizens, public lands, and/or farming and ranching operations. Ironically, by far the fastest growing and mostly economically damaging noxious weeds in the U.S. are both noxious and spreading because they have developed resistance to commonly applied herbicides, and especially glyphosate.
There is near-universal agreement in the weed science community nationwide, and surely as well in the PNW, that over-reliance on glyphosate (Roundup) over the last two decades has created multiple, new noxious weeds posing serious economic, environmental, and public health threats.
In fact, over 120 million acres of cultivated cropland in the U.S. is now infested with one or more glyphosate-resistant weed (for details, see http://cehn-healthykids.org/herbicide-use/resistant-weeds/).
The majority of glyphosate-resistant weeds are in the Southeast and Midwest, where routine, year-after-year planting of Roundup Ready crops has led to heavy and continuous selection pressure on weed populations, pressure that over three-to-six years typically leads to the evolution of genetically resistant weed phenotypes, that can then take off, spreading across tens of millions of acres in just a few years.
Ask any farmer in Georgia, or Iowa, or Arkansas whether they would call “noxious” the glyphosate-resistant kochia, Palmer amaranth, Johnson grass, marestail, or any of a dozen other glyphosate-resistant weeds in their fields.
It is virtually certain that an herbicide-based attempt to eradicate noxious weeds in Sherman County would fail. It would also be extremely costly, and would pose hard-to-predict collateral damage on non-target plants from drift, and on human health and the environment. But even worse, it would also, almost certainly, accelerate the emergence and spread of a host of weeds resistant to the herbicides used in the program.
This would, in turn, leave the county, and the county’s farmers with not just their existing suite of noxious weeds to deal with, but a new generation of them resistant to glyphosate, or whatever other herbicides are widely used.
Sherman County’s proposal, while perhaps well meaning, will simply push the herbicide use-resistant weed treadmill into high gear. Just as farmers in other parts of the county have learned over the last 20 years, excessive reliance on glyphosate, or herbicides over-all, accomplishes only one thing reliably – it accelerates the emergence and spread of resistant weeds, requiring applications of more, and often more toxic herbicides, and so on before some one, or something breaks this vicious cycle.
I urge you to take into account two other consequences if the County pursues this deeply flawed strategy. Certified organic food products grown and processed in Oregon, and distributed by Oregon-based companies like Azure and the Organically Grown Company, are highly regarded throughout the U.S. for exceptional quality, consistency, and value.
Plus, export demand is growing rapidly across several Pacific Rim nations for high-value, certified organic foods and wine from Oregon. Triggering a high-profile fight over government-mandated herbicide spraying on certified organic fields in Sherman County will come as a shock to many people, who are under the impression that all Oregonians, farmers and consumers alike, are committed to a vibrant, growing, and profitable organic food industry.
Does Sherman County really want to erode this halo benefiting the marketing of not just organic products, but all food and beverages from Oregon?
Second, if Sherman County is serious about weed eradication, it will have to mandate widespread spraying countywide, and not just on organic farms, and not just for one year. The public reaction will be swift, strong, and build in ferocity. It will likely lead to civil actions of the sort that can trigger substantial, unforeseen costs and consequences. I am surely not the only citizen of the State that recalls the tragic events last year in Malheur County.
Plus, I guarantee you that the County, the herbicide applicators, and the manufacturers of the herbicides applied, under force of law on organic or other farms, will face a torrent of litigation seeking compensatory damages for loss of reputation, health risks, and the loss of premium markets and prices.
I have followed litigation of this sort for decades, and have served as an expert witness in several herbicide-related cases. While it is obviously premature to start contemplating the precise legal theories and statutes that will form the crux of future litigation, the County should develop a realistic estimate of the legal costs likely to arise in the wake of this strategy, if acted upon, so that the County Commissioners can alert the public upfront regarding how they will raise the funds needed to deal with the costs of near-inevitable litigation.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Charles Benbrook, PhD
Troy, Oregon
When did U.S. citizens (farmers and consumers alike) lose their freedom to protect their families, land and water from toxins? This short-sighted measure to spray “noxious weeds,” will surely further reduce biodiversity, and thereby threaten sustainable, resilient food systems, and public health.
Thanks for keeping us informed, Chuck. Please keep us posted on community organizing and communication efforts. I will share this link with the nutrition community.
it occurs when it is for the greater good of society. Other example that some resist:
– vaccinations
– fluoridated water
– Vit D fortified milk
Coming from decades of experience, it is heartening to read Dr. Charles Benbrook’s letter concerning Sherman County’s proposal to use herbicides to eradicate noxious weeds on Azure Farm in Oregon. Growing up on a small organic farm, and having organic gardens most of my life, I am well aware of how herbicides only increase the presence of noxious weeds, which creates a far larger problem as time goes on. It seems to me far wiser to use natural methods of controlling weeds. When using methods that have worked for thousands of years, rather than the toxic chemicals of today, that reap huge profits for manufacturers, we can instead choose to nurture the ongoing health of our food, farms, people, animals, pollinators, and planet Earth. Surely we owe it to ourselves and to this beautiful planet we call home. I encourage us to “Be the change”…to stand up, speak and act.
Jerilee Newby,
Healthy Grandmother Elder, Organic Gardener,
Certified Nutritional Herbalist, Teacher
Pesticides from conventional farms should not drift onto organic farms. By the same logic, pests from organic farms should not infest neighboring conventional farms. This is much more common than is reported.
Yes indeed, pesticides, pests, and genes in pollen move around and do not respect property lines or differences in management systems. The aspect of this Sherman County episode that I found over the edge is the notion that the County, via its police powers, could eradicate a widely dispersed weed like Russian thistle, or any other type of thistle via a mandatory spray program. Any such effort would have a devastating impact on plant life in the county and hasten the evolution of resistant weeds. The “harm+cost” to benefit ratio would be hugely negative. And requiring one or a few farms to attempt eradication of a widely dispersed weed is hard to defend when it remains likely that the weed will be back from both the weed seedbank and surrounding, untreated areas.
You made big assumptions without any information. How will the applications be made? The article does not specify. Also, one application will not cause a devastating impact on plant life. If that were the case, farmers would not need to spray every year. Also, herbicide resistance requires multiple applications. Based on your logic, you would have to conclude that tillage would also have a devastating impact.
I agree that trying to eradicate a widely established weed, noxious or otherwise, via tillage would cause lots of collateral damage, be very expensive,and futile in the long run. I guess the underlying point is that it is very difficult to eradicate well-established weeds or pests regardless of the hammer one brings to the task. Many hammers are better than one, of course. I accept that there are some circumstances where an effort to snuff out a newly arrived exotic pest is warranted, and that under some circumstances, the rights of certain landowners, farmers, or rural neighbors will not be respected. But the efforts should be timely, designed with a high probability of success, and then carried out mercilessly. Any private citizens that are harmed economically as a result should be fairly compensated, just as a county has to pay for land it takes over to build a road, e.g.
Chuck