EPA faces court over backing of Monsanto's
controversial crop system
SEE ALSO : Toxic America
Revealed: Monsanto predicted crop system would damage
US farms
Missouri farmer
Bill Bader won a $265m jury verdict against Monsanto and BASF after alleging
his peach trees were damaged by the illegal use of the herbicide dicamba
Internal documents describe how to profit from farmer
losses and desire to oppose some independent testing
The ninth circuit court of appeals is being asked to
overturn the EPA’s approval of a Monsanto herbicide that is allegedly a threat
to farm crops across the US
Carey
Gillam
Published
onMon 20 Apr 2020 10.06 BST
The US
Environmental Protection Agency is due in federal court on Tuesday to answer
allegations that it broke the law to support a Monsanto system that has
triggered “widespread” crop damage over the last few summers and continues to
threaten farms across the country.
As farmers
prepare to plant a new season of key American food crops, farmer and consumer
groups are asking the ninth circuit court of appeals in San Francisco to review
and overturn the EPA’s approval of a Monsanto herbicide made with a chemical
called dicamba.
The
allegations are from the National Family Farm Coalition, which represents tens
of thousands of farmers across the US, and three non-profit consumer and
environmental groups. They have been granted an expedited review of their legal
petition and hope for a ruling that would block use of the herbicide this
summer.
The court
hearing, which is to be handled by phone due to the coronavirus closing of
California courthouses, comes just a month after the office of inspector
general for the EPA said it would open an investigation into the agency’s
handling of dicamba herbicides.
Farmers
have reported dicamba damage in both organic and conventional crops, including
non-GMO soybeans, wheat, grapes, melons, vegetables and tobacco. A Missouri
peach farmer won a $265m verdict in February against Monsanto and German
chemical giant BASF after accusing the companies of creating a “defective” crop
system that damaged 30,000 peach trees.
The
Guardian reported last month that internal Monsanto documents obtained through
the peach farmer litigation revealed that Monsanto predicted its dicamba crop
system would lead to thousands of damage claims from US farmers but pushed
ahead anyway, trying to downplay the risks to the EPA.
“You’ve had
millions of acres impacted,” said George Kimbrell, a lawyer with the Center for
Food Safety, which is one of the environmental groups seeking court review of
the EPA, alongside the Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action
Network.
Kimbrell
said: “They decided to make farmers part of an ongoing experiment. The dicamba
problem is unprecedented.”
EPA
approval
The crop
system in question was developed by Monsanto with help from BASF to encourage
farmers to buy dicamba herbicides and spray them over the top of new
genetically engineered soybean and cotton crops developed by Monsanto to
tolerate dicamba. The altered crops survive dicamba spray but weeds die, making
it easier for farmers to eradicate weeds resistant to other herbicides such as
Monsanto’s glyphosate.
Before the
introduction of Monsanto’s dicamba-tolerant cotton in 2015 and soybeans in
2016, farmers were largely restricted from using dicamba during the growing
season because the chemical can easily drift and vaporize, traveling long
distances from where it is sprayed. But the release of the new dicamba-tolerant
crops upended that restraint and the EPA subsequently approved “new use”
dicamba products sold by Monsanto, BASF and Corteva Agriscience for treating
fields planted with the genetically engineered cotton and soybeans.
The
companies said their herbicides would have low volatility and if farmers
followed instructions on the product labels, they could prevent drift. But
since the introduction of the new dicamba-tolerant soybeans and cotton, drift
and volatilization has killed or injured a variety of crops, fruit trees and
other plants across several millions acres.
Costs to
farmers
The
consumer and environmental groups claim the EPA violated federal law by failing
to analyze the “significant socioeconomic and agronomic costs to farmers” and
not relying on adequate data in its approvals of the herbicides. The damage
over the last few summer seasons has been “catastrophic” they claim.
The groups
cite government documents they say show that the EPA itself has downplayed or
ignored warnings from state agricultural officials and farmer pleas for
protection from dicamba drift. Instead the agency has worked closely with
Monsanto to keep the company’s dicamba herbicide, called XtendiMax, on the
market, they say.
Documents
filed in court show Monsanto met multiple times with EPA officials about the
concerns, even editing EPA language about certain steps Monsanto should take in
communications with retailers. In an October 2017 email, an EPA official
forwarded a Monsanto official comments from the agency regarding the company’s
product label, writing: “Like I said, no surprises.”
While the
EPA worked with Monsanto, the records show the agency was well aware of the
extent of crop damage being reported to multiple states. In a June 2018 email
an Arkansas bee keeper said dicamba had caused a 50% reduction in his honey
production, and a July 2018 email from a Kansas Department of Agriculture
supervisor told the EPA the department had been “overrun with dicamba
complaints”.
Monsanto,
which was bought by Bayer AG in 2018, said the claims raised by the farm
coalition and other petitioners are “baseless” and the company “stands fully
behind” its product.
“We believe
the extensive body of science supporting the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)’s registration decision will ultimately determine the outcome,” said
Bayer spokesman Chris Loder. Monsanto has filed as an intervenor in the case.
For its
part, BASF said dicamba herbicides are “critically important tools for growers”
and said the company is providing training to dicamba applicators and is
working with academics and state and federal agencies to address concerns.
Corteva
declined to comment.
Despite the
outcry over dicamba damage, in November 2018 the EPA granted a two-year
extension for the dicamba herbicides for use over the dicamba-tolerant cotton
and soybeans. That registration expires on 20 December and the agency is
currently considering whether or not to further extend approval.
In the
meantime, the EPA said it was working with states and with the companies
selling the dicamba herbicides to “better understand the issue” to enable it to
deal with “the problem of illegal drift”.
The EPA
also insists that it is not certain what is causing the crop damage.
“The
underlying causes of the various damage incidents are not yet clear, as ongoing
investigations have yet to be concluded,” the agency told the Guardian.
Carey Gillam tweets at @careygillam
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário