Hygeia AnalyticsLogo

Menu

Skip to content
  • Home
  • About Hygeia
    Analytics
    • Dynamic Presentations
    • Keywords and Site Map
    • Hygeia Analytics – Who We Are
    • Why Hygeia?
    • Funding and “Sound Science”
    • Acronyms and Glossary
    • Sign-Up for Updates
  • Nutrition
    • Introduction and Nutrition 101
      • Good Fat Bad Fat
      • Fatty Acids
        • Primer on the Fatty Acids in Milk
      • Impact of Livestock Feeding
    • Antioxidants
      • Organic Farming Elevates Antioxidants
      • Maximizing Antioxidant Intake
    • Organic vs. Conventional Foods
      • Milk and Dairy Products
        • 2018 Grassmilk Paper
        • PLOS ONE Study
        • Dairy Meta-Analysis
      • Multi Food Meta-Analyses
        • Meat Products
        • Plant-Based Foods
        • Smith-Spangler et al.
        • Dangour et al.
        • The Organic Center Report
      • Food Specific Comparisons
        • General
        • Fruits and Vegetables
        • Wine and Wine Grapes
    • Considering Nutritional Quality
      • Impact of Genetics and Production Systems
      • New Tool for Food Security
      • Transforming Jane Doe’s Diet
      • Nutritional Quality Index
    • Nutrient Decline
    • Other Choices and Challenges
      • Human Health
      • Dietary Choices
  • Pesticides
    • Usage
      • Pesticide Use Data Sources
        • Pesticide Use Indicators
      • PUDS – The Pesticide Use Data System
    • Dietary Risks
      • The Dietary Risk Index (DRI)
    • Risk Assessment and Regulation
      • Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
      • Glyphosate/Roundup Case Study
      • The Lowdown on Roundup
      • Does Glyphosate/Roundup Cause Cancer?
      • 2019 Glyphosate Genotoxicity Paper
    • Impacts of GE on Pesticide Use
    • Environmental, Human Health, and Other Impacts of Pesticides
  • Ag Biotech
    • Key Historical Documents – Donald Duvick
    • Key Historical Documents – Arpad Pusztai
    • Herbicide Resistant Crops
    • Weed Resistance
    • Bt Transgenic Crops
    • Resistant Insects
    • Health Risks and Safety Assessments
    • Regulation of GE Crop Technology
    • Marketing, Economics, and Public Relations
    • Patenting and Intellectual Property Issues
    • Labeling
  • Other Issues
    • Animal Products
    • The Future of Food
    • Global Food Security
    • Natural Resources and Climate Change
    • Alternatives to Industrial Ag
    • Policy and Politics
    • Scientific Integrity
    • Soil Health
    • Yields
  • Recent Posts
    • Hot Science
    • In The News
    • Hygeia’s Blog
  • Special
    Coverage
    • Organic Apples in Washington State
    • Dicamba Drift Crisis
    • Organic Food Consumption Lowers Cancer Risk
    • Organic Integrity

Dicamba Update – Document Review Shows EPA Used Monsanto Science to Justify Reducing Buffer Requirements

Posted on March 9, 2018 in GMOs, In The News, Pesticides, Scientific Integrity | 269 Views

In the latest in the ongoing saga of the new dicamba-tolerant crops and their herbicides that won’t stay where they are sprayed, a document review investigation by the St-Louis Post Dispatch reveals that Monsanto’s own science played a key role in how the use restrictions were set.

EPA had originally proposed a larger, more comprehensive, all-direction buffer for all of the new dicamba formulations, the first to be approved for post-emergent use over growing crops.  Then, Monsanto submitted updated research on dicamba drift that, according to the company, demonstrated little to no volatility. EPA was apparently convinced, since it reduced the buffer to just 110 ft on the downwind side of fields on which the herbicide is applied — a big difference.

It turns out this Monsanto research was conducted in Georgia and Texas, two states that have had only modest problems with dicamba drift and crop damage, for reasons that remain unclear.

While scientists are still working out all the factors that impact herbicide volatility, air temp and wind speed clearly play an important role — so, local weather conditions on the day of application, and soon thereafter, are critical.

Industry science influencing regulation is nothing new, in fact that is the way the system is designed to work.

“Thus, the pesticide companies, rather than the taxpayers, shoulder the cost of performing the safety studies on pesticides required by EPA,” says EPA spokesman Robert Daguillard, “EPA, however, has extensive requirements in place to ensure that the data generated by pesticide companies are scientifically sound and provide sufficient information to assess the potential risks of a pesticide.”

Monsanto’s science says that dicamba doesn’t drift, but over 3 million acres of soybeans alone were damaged by drifting dicamba in 2017.  It’s clear that something doesn’t quite add up in the real world where dicamba does drift, and does cause crop damage.

EPA has placed some further restrictions on dicamba use for the coming season, but many feel it will not be enough to prevent further damage.

For much more, see our series of Dicamba Watch presentations, and keep checking back for more as the growing – and spraying – season unfolds.

Source:

Johnathan Hettinger, “EPA eased herbicide regulations following Monsanto research, records show,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 1, 2018.

Posted in GMOs, In The News, Pesticides, Scientific Integrity | Tagged Dicamba, Policy and Politics

Related Posts

FAQs re Biden-Harris Ag and EPA Transition Priorities→

Implications of EPA’s Decision to Renew Dicamba Registration for Over-the-Top Use→

Dr. Benbrook Testifies Before the Philadelphia City Council as they Consider Glyphosate Ban→

Guest Blog: The Big Meat Gang Is Getting Awfully Smelly→

Why Promoting Organic Integrity Must Become a Top Priority for USDA→

Guest Blog: Finding the Root Cause of Organic Fraud→

So What About the Integrity of the U.S. Organic Grain Supply?→

Guest Blog: Organic Food & Pesticide Residues, One Grower’s Perspective→

©2016 Hygeia-Analytics.com. All Rights Reserved.

Menu