By MICHELE F. MIHALJEVICH
Indiana Correspondent WASHINGTON, D.C. — The eventual release of dicamba-resistant soybeans could have dire consequences for Midwest farmers, an official with Red Gold said last week on Capitol Hill.
Speaking before a hearing of the U.S. House Domestic Policy Subcommittee, Steve Smith, Red Gold’s director of agriculture, said dicamba’s tendency to move off-target causes harm to soybeans, specialty crops and landscaping.
“It is incompatible with Midwestern agriculture. I am convinced that in all of my years serving the agricultural industry, the widespread use of dicamba herbicide possesses the single most serious threat to the future of the specialty crop industry in the Midwest,” he testified.
Although dicamba may be spread through direct drift and spray tank contamination, the primary concern to Midwest agriculture is its inclination to volatilize – or for its active ingredient to evaporate – Smith noted. Depending on conditions, the active ingredient may remain in the air up to four days and could travel up to two miles from the initial application area, he said, adding it is impossible to predict or control its movement.
Dicamba has been used on corn for years and has proven to be an effective herbicide, but Smith said it has also caused injury and yield reductions in soybeans. Once dicamba-resistant soybeans are introduced, the use of dicamba in corn could grow, he said.
“With no fear of soybean injury, the use of dicamba on corn acreage will dramatically increase, raising the overall exposure of sensitive crops to injury,” he said.
Smith testified before the subcommittee on Thursday, and spoke to Farm World Friday, after returning to Indiana. Red Gold, the largest privately held canned tomato processor in the United States, is based in the Hoosier state. The company purchases tomatoes from 54 family farms in Indiana, Ohio and Michigan.
“Whether you are a pumpkin farmer in Illinois, a melon farmer in Indiana or if you raise green beans and peas in Wisconsin and Minnesota, volatilization is the primary concern,” he said. “Also, organic farmers may be severely affected, as they could possibly lose their certification if pesticides are found in their crops.”
Indiana also has a new wine grape industry, he said, adding that Purdue University has reported extensive damage to the grapes because of dicamba.
The introduction of dicamba Roundup Ready soybeans is five years away, said Philip W. Miller, vice president of global regulatory for Monsanto Co. He also testified before the subcommittee.
“Proper stewardship of dicamba in dicamba-tolerant crops is imperative, and includes attention to guarding against the development of weeds resistant to dicamba and minimizing off-site movement of dicamba,” Miller said. “Monsanto is aware of the concerns regarding the off-site movement of dicamba and is working with multiple stakeholders to address the issue.”
In his testimony, Smith said his remarks shouldn’t be taken as opposition to all forms of biotechnology.
“Nothing could be further from the truth. The technological progress made in the last 20 years is responsible for us having the world’s safest, most nutritious and affordable food supply,” he said.
“Many might suggest that technology has taken us the wrong direction and is harming our environment and the sustainable nature of agriculture. I would suggest just the opposite to be true, when good stewardship practices are implemented and followed.”
During the hearing, the subcommittee, chaired by U.S. Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, (D-Ohio), also heard testimony on the spread of “superweeds.” The committee is looking into whether USDA biotechnology policy has hastened the growth of such weeds.
USDA supports all forms of agriculture – conventional, which includes the use of genetically engineered (GE) products, and organic – said Ann Wright, deputy undersecretary of Marketing and Regulatory Programs for the agency.
“This administration and the USDA see biotech as being a very important tool,” she noted. “All options have to be supportive of that.”
Wright pointed out herbicide resistance among weeds is nothing new and is not exclusive to GE crops.
“Anytime an herbicide or any other weed control tactic is used continually – whether with GE or non-GE crops – it is going to put pressure on weeds to develop resistance,” she said. “USDA understands that growers are being challenged by these issues, and that they’re looking for guidance and assistance.”
Weed resistance is an herbicide issue, not a biotech issue, and is dependent on how herbicides are used, added Monsanto’s Miller.
“The proactive adoption of best management practices based on the principle of diversity in weed management will improve weed control, help ensure that conservation tillage systems are sustainable and that the economic and environmental benefits are fully realized,” he said.
USDA should focus on promoting integrated weed management practices that prioritize non-chemical modes of weed control, such as cover crops, William Freese, senior policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety, said during the hearing.
“Winter cover crops such as cereal rye, hairy vetch and red clover are planted in the fall after the main crop’s harvest, grow in the fall and next spring and when killed prior to spring planting, provide physical suppression of weeds in the following main crop.
“Weed scientists have specifically recommended increased use of cover crops to suppress glyphosate-resistant weeds,” Freese said.
If use of herbicide-tolerant crops is limited, farmers could look to the past for answers, possibly causing additional problems, Wright explained.
“Farmers will likely have to return to older, often costly, and less environmentally friendly weed control methods. At the same time, we are mindful of the economic impact on farmers caused by herbicide-resistant weeds. This continues to be an issue critical to their bottom lines,” she said. |
