The dicamba system, approved for use for the first time this spring, was supposed to break the cycle and guarantee weed control in soybeans and cotton. The herbicide — used in combination with a genetically modified dicamba-resistant soybean — promises better control of unwanted plants such as pigweed, which has become resistant to common weed killers.

The problem, farmers and weed scientists say, is that dicamba has drifted from the fields where it was sprayed, damaging millions of acres of unprotected soybeans and other crops in what some are calling a man-made disaster. Critics say that the herbicide was approved by federal officials without enough data, particularly on the critical question of whether it could drift off target.

Government officials and manufacturers Monsanto and BASF deny the charge, saying the system worked as Congress designed it.

Continue reading:  Weed killer designed to save farms is devastating them

7 thoughts on “Weed killer designed to save farms is devastating them

  1. Without regulations, Monsanto and others in the industry will starve vast populations. In the meantime, Nature continues to adapt to our onslaught. I envision a future in which all the toxins we consume and inhale will threaten the ability of our species to reproduce.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. To add…

    “Monsanto prevented key independent testing of its product, [and] went unchallenged by the Environmental Protection Agency and nearly every state regulator….

    In this case, Monsanto denied requests by university researchers to study its XtendiMax with VaporGrip for volatility – a measure of its tendency to vaporize and drift across fields.

    The researchers interviewed by Reuters – Jason Norsworthy at the University of Arkansas, Kevin Bradley at the University of Missouri and Aaron Hager at the University of Illinois – said Monsanto provided samples of XtendiMax before it was approved by the EPA. However, the samples came with contracts that explicitly forbade volatility testing.”


    Unchallenged. Why?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Money in politics, corporatism (i.e. the merger of state and corporate power), “inverted totalitarianism” (a term coined by political philosopher Sheldon Wolin), oligarchy, plutocracy, or whatever else someone would like to call it. “A rose by any other name…”

      Or, is it something else entirely? Do you remember my thought experiment on the ultimate solution to climate change?

      Liked by 2 people

      • I remember. Monsanto may as well kill off their competition, along with the population. But down the road, who will be left to buy food? I guess there are lots of profits to make before that happens.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. Just like Roundup…

    I wish people would learn that we need to put extreme pressure on politicians to protect living beings – including voting them out of office. This strategy takes longer than the violent tactics being used by some people, but would be more effective in the long run.

    (Yes, I’m aware that we have less “long run” than before and that it is shrinking all the time, but this is still the only viable strategy – violence will feed the enemies of life and democracy by emboldening them and will convince stupid, scared, undecided people that the Corporatist-Fascists have a valid point).

    Scary times, indeed.

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.