10 ms·

NPR has been reporting on the issues farmers have had with Dicamba for months now http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?searchinput=dicamba http://www.npr.org/se

by zymhan 9y ago

NPR has been reporting on the issues farmers have had with Dicamba for months now http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?searchinput=dicamba http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?searchinput=dicamba http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/13/557607443/with-ok-from-epa-use-of-controversial-weedkiller-is-expected-to-double http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/13/557607443/wit... http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/07/555872494/a-wayward-weed-killer-divides-farm-communities-harms-wildlife http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/07/555872494/a-w... http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/07/06/535669282/damage-from-wayward-weedkiller-keeps-growing http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/07/06/535669282/dam... http://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532879755/a-pesticide-a-pigweed-and-a-farmers-murder http://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532879755/a-pesticide-a-pigwee... It's not surprising that Monsanto would try use their widespread influence to stop research on their product. Monsanto has claimed that the issue with Dicamba drifting and killing crops in fields that it wasn't applied to was the fault of the farmers mis-application of Dicamba. Evidence now shows that Dicamba will evaporate from the soil _after_ being applied to crops safely, meaning that it cannot be prevented from drifting into other fields and killing innocent farmer's crops.

srcmap 9y ago
Looks like a good case for class action lawsuit for all the surrounding farmers that have suffer damage from this. There are scientific proof, clear documented $$$ damage, etc. Any idea why it has not initiated yet?
- saluki 9y ago
  It's in the works. I'm hearing radio law firm ads in the midwest asking for farmers who have suffered Dicamba crop damage to call them.
  - dexterdog 9y ago
    So the law firms may do well while the farmers will get maybe half of their lost crops back.
- christophilus 9y ago
  I have an idea, but it's pure speculation. Fear. Going up against Monstanto and the like is a good way to get into trouble. [0][1] There are many other examples. Often, they are mixed with sentimentalism or sensationalism (and these examples might be, too-- they're the result of 5 seconds of Googling). But beneath the ones I've read/watched, there's clearly some truth. [0] https://modernfarmer.com/2015/09/seeding-fear-the-story-of-a-farmer-who-took-on-monsanto/ https://modernfarmer.com/2015/09/seeding-fear-the-story-of-a... [1] https://www.rt.com/news/206787-monsanto-india-farmers-suicides/ https://www.rt.com/news/206787-monsanto-india-farmers-suicid...
  - rwoodley 9y ago
    Please don't cite rt.com. That is pure Russian propaganda. Not saying your general point is wrong, but the minute you cite rt.com you're basically repeating politcally generated fake news straight from the Kremlin.
    - oh_sigh 9y ago
      Agreed. Also, don't cite BBC because it is fake news straight from Buckingham. Also, don't quote WSJ or NYT because it is fake news straight from the 1%. And don't quote CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News because they are all just fake news buzzfeed wannabes.
      - wavefunction 9y ago
        Buckingham? The British monarchy is only a figurehead.
        bdamm 9y ago
        Right, they probably meant Downing Street.
        macawfish 9y ago
        I took that as silly humor. Buckingham is a funny word.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
  Would you? So far Monsanto was able to crush everybody - by threats, lawyers, sponsored research, lobbying, you name it. Would you like to be the first one to try your luck?
- bloaf 9y ago
  Why not first penalize the farmers who used the stuff? That would make farmers think twice about using untested herbicides. Then, if a farmer does use a Monsanto product and accidentally burns his neighbor, he can be the one who has to try to recoup the losses from Monsanto (e.g. through false advertising claims.)
  - CodeWriter23 9y ago
    Dicamba and the rushed-to-market GMO Dicamba-resistant crops were all certified by the USDA and FDA prior to use. The problem here is the scientific studies used by the FDA in certifying products are produced by the vendor, instead of an adversarial third party. Combine that with Monsanto’s formidable PR and Legal capabilities, and of course, the result is dangerous products that nobody can even talk about. This whistleblower guy at the University of Missouri, his career is over. Monsanto will see to that through either withdrawing its funding to their research programs, or by funding them even more, with the quid-pro-quo that this guy is fired for some unrelated reason, like phony performance reviews, or perhaps allegations of him sleeping with a student.
  - FilterSweep 9y ago
    I've only worked on a farm with a college roommate for a very brief period of time, but I would assume Monsanto does the exact same thing big pharma does with Doctors and Nurses - Hire extremely attractive men and women to go to farms and sell some 'Santo Seed.
- mcguire 9y ago
  Lawsuits are expensive and agriculture is a low margin enterprise. Further Monsanto would likely field a team of lawyers for the defense. According to one of the side bars, disputes between farmers have already led to one death.
  - saluki 9y ago
    this happened last fall https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2016/10/28/confrontation-herbicide-drift-leads https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2016/1...
- antispew 9y ago
  Farmers cannot fight Monsanto. That is suicide. Let's say you sue for an entire year's worth of crops and you win. Then you win the appeal. And you win the appeal of the appeal. All the way up the chain. For 10 years, you win on every level. But you never plant another crop and you go out of business. At this point, Monsanto owns the world of agriculture. If you are planting something that is not owned by Monsanto, you are losing. Monsanta-engineered crops have such a higher yield that to plant anything else would wipe out your profit margin. The higher yield is magnified by the fact that non-Monsanto crops planted anywhere near Monsanto crops are dying from Monsanto herbicides. It's simple math. No farmer can survive 10 years of losses due to inferior production. The giants like ADP won't go after Monsanto because they have not been affected. They are already using Monsanto seed. Young independents won't go after Monsanto because the only way they can compete against the ADPs is to use Monsanto. So you have a few handfuls of old farmers who are ready to retire and have no family who want to carry on. They are going to sell out to some cookie-cutter subdivision developer anyway, so maybe they could be enticed into an otherwise suicidal court case. Or maybe they don't have the energy for it. Those who win (iffy at best) will not win a real windfall. No court is going to give Monsanto a death sentence. And the farmers will have a hardtime arguing too much harm when they still got 50% of their crop harvested and made $millions$ by selling the land. Mansanto can absorb a million dollar settlement here and there. If I'm Monsanto, I'm not worried. If I'm a no-holds-barred in-it-for-the-buck securities advisor, I'd say "buy Monsanto." I might also say, "short Whole Foods" because their supply is dwindling and their prices have to go up. If I'm a save-the-world stop-injustice activist, I'm looking for new sources of significant capital to stem the tide. And I'll keep fighting on because it was a dim prospect from the beginning anyway.
  - prklmn 9y ago
    > Let's say you sue for an entire year's worth of crops and you win. Then you win the appeal. And you win the appeal of the appeal. All the way up the chain. For 10 years, you win on every level. Herein lies the beauty of a class action suit. Let the lawyers finance and worry about the lawsuit while you go on your merry way running your farm.
    - 9y ago
- nobodyorother 9y ago
  Arbitration clauses?
jobu 9y ago
> Evidence now shows that Dicamba will evaporate from the soil _after_ being applied to crops safely, meaning that it cannot be prevented from drifting into other fields and killing innocent farmer's crops. This is a _huge_ issue for Monsanto. There was an estimated 3 million acres of damage to non-dicamba resistant crops last year. Right now Monsanto is claiming that 88% of the crop damage was caused by improper application (wrong nozzles, spraying to close to other crops, etc.), but the evaporation tests could throw a wrench in that claim. The current Dicamba formula is not supposed to evaporate, so if it does then Monsanto could be on the hook for a lot more damage than previously thought.
- wonderwonder 9y ago
  For a normal company one could believe this. But Monsanto is like the energy / coal companies in that they are deeply entrenched in politics via lobbyists and campaign contributions. It's very difficult to go to war with a company that has the support of the government and a virtually unlimited budget. Even if they are sued and lose, the fine will most likely be a percentage point of their operating profits. Essentially the drift is a positive for them. Neighboring crop fields are damaged. The farmers cannot afford to sue Monsanto or fear doing so, and their only recourse is to switch over to Monsanto branded seeds next season. Another interesting tactic is that if you plant a Monsanto crop for a season, you are not allowed to use any seeds generated by that crop to plant the next season, you have to purchase new seeds every season. [Edit: This next point was debunked] In addition if any seeds blow onto a neighbors farm and those seeds grow, that farmer can and will be sued by Monsanto for growing their IP.
  - vishvananda 9y ago
    The last point about seed blowing has been debunked. It is listed as myth number 2 here: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top...
    - wonderwonder 9y ago
PrgsvThgt 9y ago
Where is the evidence to suggest that evaporated dicamba is able to condense in sufficient quantity to effect plants at a distance? I've lived among large production farm, much of my life. The application of spray products (keyword: sprayers that produce mists of liquid products) are easily caught and carried by the lightest winds. Dicamba does not "evaporate" in any appreciable amount. It is highly soluble in water and has a melting point 237-241 degrees F.... The water would evaporate, leaving the chemical behind.
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  That's an insufficient model of evaporation. The evidence is the study in which they applied Dicamba as directed to waterproof trays of dirt in one field. They then trucked the trays of dirt to another field, and laid them between rows of non-resistant crops. The crops died, showing that the Dicamba in the trays must have affected the crops. Water has a melting point of 212F. Nonetheless, it evaporates, and does not all stay behind.
  - skybrian 9y ago
    Err, boiling point.
    - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
      Yeah, but too late to edit.
  - PrgsvThgt 9y ago
    Water boils at 212F, melts at 32F. It is a sufficient model of evcaporation. For dicamaba to have a sufficient concentration to harm (even targeted plants) it must be rather concentrated, compared to what one might find in concentrations produced by condensation (one field over). Having a degree in organic chemistry and thousands of hours of bench chemistry, I can speak with some authority on the matter.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
samstave 9y ago
Also make sure you look at the affect of monsanto GMOs on the indian farmer's suicide rate: http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_suicid.html http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_sui...
- saalweachter 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India The suicide rate among Indian farmers is 1.4 to 1.8 per 100,000. That is about 5-6 times lower than the overall rate in India or the United States. Most people pushing the story are relying on the fact that there are a lot of farmers in India, so even a low suicide rate is a lot of people dying. We should, of course, be concerned whenever people are choosing to commit suicide, but it is nonsensical to point to a population with one of the lowest suicide rates (less than 1/10th the overall Japanese rate!) and call it an epidemic.
  - samstave 9y ago
    tHats not the point though: The point is, that if you watch the documentary (and if you actually believe it ((jury is out))) that the farmers were committing more suicide after the intro of Monsanto products REDUCED their yields and they fell into even more poverty as they couldn't pay the Monsanto tax - and thus fell into despair and killed themselves. IIRC.
  - kafkaesq 9y ago
    The suicide rate among Indian farmers is 1.4 to 1.8 per 100,000 Since you're into stats, what do you think of this graph? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bt_Cotton_Hectares_and_Farmer_Suicides_Time_Trend_India.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bt_Cotton_Hectares_and_Fa... Point being, the story people "pushing" isn't about the overall rate of farmer suicides in the world's second most populous country - but about the rates in specific regions, and how those rates have changed in recent years, in response to specific events.
    - saalweachter 9y ago

by zymhan 9y ago

srcmap 9y ago

Looks like a good case for class action lawsuit for all the surrounding farmers that have suffer damage from this. There are scientific proof, clear documented $$$ damage, etc. Any idea why it has not initiated yet?

saluki 9y ago
It's in the works. I'm hearing radio law firm ads in the midwest asking for farmers who have suffered Dicamba crop damage to call them.
- dexterdog 9y ago
  So the law firms may do well while the farmers will get maybe half of their lost crops back.
christophilus 9y ago
I have an idea, but it's pure speculation. Fear. Going up against Monstanto and the like is a good way to get into trouble. [0][1] There are many other examples. Often, they are mixed with sentimentalism or sensationalism (and these examples might be, too-- they're the result of 5 seconds of Googling). But beneath the ones I've read/watched, there's clearly some truth. [0] https://modernfarmer.com/2015/09/seeding-fear-the-story-of-a-farmer-who-took-on-monsanto/ https://modernfarmer.com/2015/09/seeding-fear-the-story-of-a... [1] https://www.rt.com/news/206787-monsanto-india-farmers-suicides/ https://www.rt.com/news/206787-monsanto-india-farmers-suicid...
- rwoodley 9y ago
  Please don't cite rt.com. That is pure Russian propaganda. Not saying your general point is wrong, but the minute you cite rt.com you're basically repeating politcally generated fake news straight from the Kremlin.
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    Agreed. Also, don't cite BBC because it is fake news straight from Buckingham. Also, don't quote WSJ or NYT because it is fake news straight from the 1%. And don't quote CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News because they are all just fake news buzzfeed wannabes.
    - wavefunction 9y ago
      Buckingham? The British monarchy is only a figurehead.
      - bdamm 9y ago
        Right, they probably meant Downing Street.
      - macawfish 9y ago
        I took that as silly humor. Buckingham is a funny word.
dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
Would you? So far Monsanto was able to crush everybody - by threats, lawyers, sponsored research, lobbying, you name it. Would you like to be the first one to try your luck?
bloaf 9y ago
Why not first penalize the farmers who used the stuff? That would make farmers think twice about using untested herbicides. Then, if a farmer does use a Monsanto product and accidentally burns his neighbor, he can be the one who has to try to recoup the losses from Monsanto (e.g. through false advertising claims.)
- CodeWriter23 9y ago
  Dicamba and the rushed-to-market GMO Dicamba-resistant crops were all certified by the USDA and FDA prior to use. The problem here is the scientific studies used by the FDA in certifying products are produced by the vendor, instead of an adversarial third party. Combine that with Monsanto’s formidable PR and Legal capabilities, and of course, the result is dangerous products that nobody can even talk about. This whistleblower guy at the University of Missouri, his career is over. Monsanto will see to that through either withdrawing its funding to their research programs, or by funding them even more, with the quid-pro-quo that this guy is fired for some unrelated reason, like phony performance reviews, or perhaps allegations of him sleeping with a student.
- FilterSweep 9y ago
  I've only worked on a farm with a college roommate for a very brief period of time, but I would assume Monsanto does the exact same thing big pharma does with Doctors and Nurses - Hire extremely attractive men and women to go to farms and sell some 'Santo Seed.
mcguire 9y ago
Lawsuits are expensive and agriculture is a low margin enterprise. Further Monsanto would likely field a team of lawyers for the defense. According to one of the side bars, disputes between farmers have already led to one death.
- saluki 9y ago
  this happened last fall https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2016/10/28/confrontation-herbicide-drift-leads https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2016/1...
antispew 9y ago
Farmers cannot fight Monsanto. That is suicide. Let's say you sue for an entire year's worth of crops and you win. Then you win the appeal. And you win the appeal of the appeal. All the way up the chain. For 10 years, you win on every level. But you never plant another crop and you go out of business. At this point, Monsanto owns the world of agriculture. If you are planting something that is not owned by Monsanto, you are losing. Monsanta-engineered crops have such a higher yield that to plant anything else would wipe out your profit margin. The higher yield is magnified by the fact that non-Monsanto crops planted anywhere near Monsanto crops are dying from Monsanto herbicides. It's simple math. No farmer can survive 10 years of losses due to inferior production. The giants like ADP won't go after Monsanto because they have not been affected. They are already using Monsanto seed. Young independents won't go after Monsanto because the only way they can compete against the ADPs is to use Monsanto. So you have a few handfuls of old farmers who are ready to retire and have no family who want to carry on. They are going to sell out to some cookie-cutter subdivision developer anyway, so maybe they could be enticed into an otherwise suicidal court case. Or maybe they don't have the energy for it. Those who win (iffy at best) will not win a real windfall. No court is going to give Monsanto a death sentence. And the farmers will have a hardtime arguing too much harm when they still got 50% of their crop harvested and made $millions$ by selling the land. Mansanto can absorb a million dollar settlement here and there. If I'm Monsanto, I'm not worried. If I'm a no-holds-barred in-it-for-the-buck securities advisor, I'd say "buy Monsanto." I might also say, "short Whole Foods" because their supply is dwindling and their prices have to go up. If I'm a save-the-world stop-injustice activist, I'm looking for new sources of significant capital to stem the tide. And I'll keep fighting on because it was a dim prospect from the beginning anyway.
- prklmn 9y ago
  > Let's say you sue for an entire year's worth of crops and you win. Then you win the appeal. And you win the appeal of the appeal. All the way up the chain. For 10 years, you win on every level. Herein lies the beauty of a class action suit. Let the lawyers finance and worry about the lawsuit while you go on your merry way running your farm.
  - 9y ago
nobodyorother 9y ago
Arbitration clauses?

jobu 9y ago

> Evidence now shows that Dicamba will evaporate from the soil _after_ being applied to crops safely, meaning that it cannot be prevented from drifting into other fields and killing innocent farmer's crops. This is a _huge_ issue for Monsanto. There was an estimated 3 million acres of damage to non-dicamba resistant crops last year. Right now Monsanto is claiming that 88% of the crop damage was caused by improper application (wrong nozzles, spraying to close to other crops, etc.), but the evaporation tests could throw a wrench in that claim. The current Dicamba formula is not supposed to evaporate, so if it does then Monsanto could be on the hook for a lot more damage than previously thought.

wonderwonder 9y ago
For a normal company one could believe this. But Monsanto is like the energy / coal companies in that they are deeply entrenched in politics via lobbyists and campaign contributions. It's very difficult to go to war with a company that has the support of the government and a virtually unlimited budget. Even if they are sued and lose, the fine will most likely be a percentage point of their operating profits. Essentially the drift is a positive for them. Neighboring crop fields are damaged. The farmers cannot afford to sue Monsanto or fear doing so, and their only recourse is to switch over to Monsanto branded seeds next season. Another interesting tactic is that if you plant a Monsanto crop for a season, you are not allowed to use any seeds generated by that crop to plant the next season, you have to purchase new seeds every season. [Edit: This next point was debunked] In addition if any seeds blow onto a neighbors farm and those seeds grow, that farmer can and will be sued by Monsanto for growing their IP.
- vishvananda 9y ago
  The last point about seed blowing has been debunked. It is listed as myth number 2 here: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top...
  - wonderwonder 9y ago

PrgsvThgt 9y ago

Where is the evidence to suggest that evaporated dicamba is able to condense in sufficient quantity to effect plants at a distance? I've lived among large production farm, much of my life. The application of spray products (keyword: sprayers that produce mists of liquid products) are easily caught and carried by the lightest winds. Dicamba does not "evaporate" in any appreciable amount. It is highly soluble in water and has a melting point 237-241 degrees F.... The water would evaporate, leaving the chemical behind.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago
That's an insufficient model of evaporation. The evidence is the study in which they applied Dicamba as directed to waterproof trays of dirt in one field. They then trucked the trays of dirt to another field, and laid them between rows of non-resistant crops. The crops died, showing that the Dicamba in the trays must have affected the crops. Water has a melting point of 212F. Nonetheless, it evaporates, and does not all stay behind.
- skybrian 9y ago
  Err, boiling point.
  - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
    Yeah, but too late to edit.
- PrgsvThgt 9y ago
  Water boils at 212F, melts at 32F. It is a sufficient model of evcaporation. For dicamaba to have a sufficient concentration to harm (even targeted plants) it must be rather concentrated, compared to what one might find in concentrations produced by condensation (one field over). Having a degree in organic chemistry and thousands of hours of bench chemistry, I can speak with some authority on the matter.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago

samstave 9y ago

Also make sure you look at the affect of monsanto GMOs on the indian farmer's suicide rate: http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_suicid.html http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_sui...

saalweachter 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India The suicide rate among Indian farmers is 1.4 to 1.8 per 100,000. That is about 5-6 times lower than the overall rate in India or the United States. Most people pushing the story are relying on the fact that there are a lot of farmers in India, so even a low suicide rate is a lot of people dying. We should, of course, be concerned whenever people are choosing to commit suicide, but it is nonsensical to point to a population with one of the lowest suicide rates (less than 1/10th the overall Japanese rate!) and call it an epidemic.
- samstave 9y ago
  tHats not the point though: The point is, that if you watch the documentary (and if you actually believe it ((jury is out))) that the farmers were committing more suicide after the intro of Monsanto products REDUCED their yields and they fell into even more poverty as they couldn't pay the Monsanto tax - and thus fell into despair and killed themselves. IIRC.
- kafkaesq 9y ago
  The suicide rate among Indian farmers is 1.4 to 1.8 per 100,000 Since you're into stats, what do you think of this graph? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bt_Cotton_Hectares_and_Farmer_Suicides_Time_Trend_India.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bt_Cotton_Hectares_and_Fa... Point being, the story people "pushing" isn't about the overall rate of farmer suicides in the world's second most populous country - but about the rates in specific regions, and how those rates have changed in recent years, in response to specific events.
  - saalweachter 9y ago