Search Site   
Current News Stories
UK soil scientist honored for dedication to soil physics
Meat processing plants accused of illegally hiring children
Aggie’s judging contest draws students from three states
Tale of two Kansas museums
Equinox occurs on March 19
Unexpected cheese decline compared to production capacity
Marksmanship can be a fun sport for people of all abilities
Michigan soybean grower visits Dubai to showcase U.S. products
UK, MSU research looks at ways to better assess racetrack conditions
John Deere Club helps support future Deere workers
What do the horse industry and agriculture have in common?
   
News Articles
Search News  
   
Indiana board deciding if and how to restrict pesticide use

 

By MICHELE F. MIHALJEVICH
Indiana Correspondent

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — An Indiana committee charged with determining potential use restrictions for all pesticides in the state is studying new herbicide formulations from Dow AgroSciences and Monsanto Co.
At its Aug. 29 meeting, members of the Indiana Pesticide Review Board heard from a Dow representative regarding its Enlist Duo 2,4-D choline formulation. Monsanto officials were not present at the public meeting, though neither company had been specifically asked to attend, said Dave Scott, the board’s secretary.
The review board is a part of the Office of the Indiana State Chemist (OISC) and is responsible for all decisions regarding use restrictions in the state, said Scott, also pesticide administrator for the OISC. The annual registration of all pesticides, meanwhile, is a duty of the state chemist’s office.
Dow officials have already testified before the committee about its new formulation of 2,4-D, as has Monsanto about its dicamba product, Scott said. Company representatives have previously said their new chemistries were designed to better control off-target movement of the herbicides.
“The board’s biggest concern is the same as everyone else: The potential for off-target movement and damage to a specific crop or to a crop that doesn’t have this technology,” Scott said. “There’s also a concern about homeowners who live nearby. You don’t want to smoke a homeowner’s garden, ornamentals and trees.”
The companies are hoping to make available genetically engineered plants resistant to 2,4-D and dicamba in the next year or so. The pesticide board doesn’t have a role in deregulating the plants, which is done through the USDA.
The U.S. EPA is reviewing the use of 2,4-D and dicamba and is assessing the potential for environmental and human risks associated with their use. Dow officials told the committee they hope to have all the approvals in place to offer their new seed traits and 2,4-D formulation for the next planting season.
The Indiana board has several options to consider regarding 2,4-D and dicamba, including a requirement for buffers, restrictions on maximum wind speed and limits on applications in certain counties in specific months, Scott said, adding none of those options are off the table.
During the Aug. 29 meeting, the committee discussed an experimental label for Dow’s 2,4-D formulation. The label, which is not the final marketing label, specifies such things as proper nozzle size and maximum boom height, Scott said.
“The board is hoping to find the most current version of the label that Dow and EPA are working on, but that’s a moving target,” he noted.
Board members discussed the option of requiring the label to say applications may only be done if the wind is blowing away from sensitive crops, he said. “If the label is changed (adding the wind direction requirement), that negates the need for a buffer as long as that provision is in place.”
Sensitive crops in the state include production tomatoes, grapes, melons and mint.
Dow and the Save Our Crops Coalition (SOCC) reached an agreement in September 2012 which said, in part, the label for Dow’s Enlist Duo would state the product may not be applied toward sensitive crops at any wind speed, said Steve Smith, SOCC chair. The company also pledged to educate farmers and applicators on the proper use of Enlist and to use its laboratories and field staff to be sure its chemicals were applied correctly.
The SOCC was formed in April 2012 over concerns with off-target damage from 2,4-D and dicamba. A primary concern of the organization has been the tendency for synthetic auxins to volatilize, or for their active ingredients to evaporate.
Smith, also director of agriculture with Elwood-based Red Gold, attended the recent pesticide board meeting and was happy to hear Dow representatives are sticking with the agreement they have with his organization.
“Dow has held to their end of the bargain,” he noted. “They have not changed our agreement in their proposals. Dow’s Enlist program is coming along and looks to be favorably viewed.”
The SOCC has tried unsuccessfully to reach an agreement with Monsanto similar to what it has with Dow.
“The sense I got from the board was very pleasing to me,” Smith said. “If a vote were taken today, I think they’d make Monsanto match what Dow does. They have to send a message to Monsanto that they should do the same thing that Dow voluntarily agreed to do.”
It remains to be seen what restrictions, if any, the board might place on the use of 2,4-D and dicamba and if those restrictions would be the same for both products, Scott said.
“For particle drift, you would think all of that would be similar,” he stated. “But for volatility, the question is, does it have the potential to get up and move after it’s applied?
“Are there vapor drift differences between the products? Drift is drift. In theory, you would hope both would have similar rules.”
The discussion will continue at the board’s next meeting, scheduled for Nov. 21 in West Lafayette.
9/12/2014