By TIM ALEXANDER

Illinois Correspondent

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — The anti-dicamba movement is gaining strength with new complaints from farmers in multiple states coming into agriculture offices daily. The number of complaints is likely to spike again after harvest begins.

In addition, a dicamba herbicide lawsuit brought by environmental groups citing violation of the Endangered Species Act is waiting in the weeds.

Farmers in as many as 17 states are suing the Monsanto Co. in various courts, with at least 1,400 complaints of in-season dicamba spray drift crop damage or loss covering more than 2.5 million acres flooding into state agricultural departments by Aug. 1. The situation has now reached the point where many early lawsuits filed by farmers against St. Louis-based Monsanto will likely need to be consolidated into multidistrict courts, legal pundits agree.

In Illinois, 243 alleged dicamba-related crop loss or damage complaints had been received by the Department of Agriculture (IDOA) as of Sept. 14, said Morgan Booth, IDOA public information officer. Booth said once a formal complaint has been filed with the department, it is assigned to a department field representative.

“A site visit is then conducted, along with interviews of the complainant and respondent, checking application records, review of weather data, possible collection of samples and lab analysis of those samples,” Booth said. “Once the field investigation is completed, all resulting information is submitted to our headquarters office for a review, then a final determination regarding possible enforcement actions is made.”

The first lawsuit placing blame for crop damage due to dicamba spray drift on the shoulders of Monsanto, maker of dicamba products Xtendimax and FeXapan, was filed by Bill Bader of Campbell, Mo. in November 2016. However, Arkansas farmers have filed the most complaints to date with more than 900 received this summer.

Extension leaders from the University of Arkansas recently became embroiled in a war of words – or at least petitions and news releases – with Monsanto over comments made by vice president of global strategy Scott Partridge, who said the Arkansas Plant Board’s recent decision to ban the spraying of dicamba products after April 15 “was a recommendation not based in true science or in fact.”

Partridge said the board’s recommendation to take dicamba out of the hands of Arkansas farmers only exacerbated the severity of the situation by causing off-target movement from off-label use of older, now-banned product formulations.

Monsanto asked in a petition filed Sept. 7 with the Arkansas Plant Board that their in-season dicamba ban be lifted during the 2018 growing season. If the petition is rejected, Monsanto indicated the matter will be taken to court.

In the petition, Monsanto said the board’s ruling was based on “unsubstantiated product theories not supported by empirical or modeled data.” The company claims their products have nothing “inherently wrong” in their technology when used according to label directions, “as evident in successful use this season.”

Monsanto noted that Arkansas state investigators have not yet issued findings on the causes behind reported dicamba symptomology reports and have not issued any recommendations for product usage. In addition, weed scientists in eight affected Arkansas counties say the “mild symptomology” reported is “unlikely to produce much, if any, yield reduction,” according to the petition.

The company accused the Arkansas Plant Board of bias in making the “short-sighted” recommendation to ban in-season dicamba herbicide usage due to the influence of a “paid consultant” serving as an expert witness against Monsanto in dicamba-related litigation and a researcher who endorses a competing product in the board’s decision-making process. A staunch rebuttal was issued the following day by Mark Cochran, vice president of agriculture for the University of Arkansas (UOA), who defended UOA agronomist Dr. Jason Norsworthy and retired UOA extension weed scientist Ford Baldwin, whom Monsanto indirectly accused of bias.

“First, and most importantly, we stand by the integrity of our scientists and their science, including Dr. Jason Norsworthy, our internationally recognized researcher and his work, and all our weed scientists, as well as other weed scientists on record in other states. We are confident in the science that we’ve used to advise the regulatory process in Arkansas,” Cochran stated.

“Even Monsanto recognizes his reputation. Just 48 hours before the petition was filed, the company invited Dr. Norsworthy to present a summary of national drift and volatility research at an academic summit on dicamba that the company is hosting in St. Louis this month. He has declined this invitation.”

Cochran promised that the board would examine “every point” in Monsanto’s petition and its exhibits, and “over time” respond factually to its major points. He denied the board’s researchers have commercially endorsed any company’s product line over another. Cochran also pledged to “publish” all data relevant to the board’s dicamba work, as per their agreement with Monsanto.

“This petition isn’t just about a single herbicide, but it’s an attack on a whole profession – scientists whose careful work is meant to be a benefit to all,” he said. “We have made our explanations available to the public, including at field days and through videos of the presentations that were and are still public on the Cooperative Extension Service site, www.uaex.edu

“Our public land grant research results are scientifically vetted and valid, and we are pledged to being transparent on our results.”

Meanwhile, environmental groups are challenging the U.S. EPA decision to allow the sale of dicamba products through a lawsuit filed in late January. National Family Farm Coalition v. EPA, Ninth Circuit, No. 17-70196 was brought by litigants including the National Family Farm Coalition, Center for Food Diversity, Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network North America.

Filed in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the petition charges the EPA with violating its duties under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in issuing the two-year registration, which will last through the 2018 growing season.