Dicamba Burnout? You’re Not Alone.
February 18, 2020 If there’s a more accurate term than “dicamba fatigue” – first mentioned in an article by reporter Emily Unglesbee in late 2019 to capture agriculture’s current sentiment towards the technology and the associated fallout – we have yet to hear it.
“It’s not a fatigue that is unique to the regulatory agencies that are having to cope with off-target movement issues,” says Andrew Thostenson, Pesticide Program Specialist with North Dakota State University Extension. “It’s at the farmer level, it’s at the custom application level, it’s at the university level, and I wouldn’t even be surprised if it’s at the level of manufacturers. I think there’s plenty of ‘fatigue’ going on.”
Dr. Tom Mueller, Professor of Weed Science at the University of Tennessee, agrees.
“Farmers have damage (from dicamba) to their LibertyLink soybeans, and in previous years they would report it. In 2019 (and my guess will be in 2020), they did not report it, since nothing ever comes of their case,” he tells CropLife.
We spoke with Thostenson on Valentine’s Day, just after he had hung up the phone with Leo Reed, Pesticide Licensing Manager with the Office of Indiana State Chemist – whose office has burned through well over $4 million and disproportionate staffing resources investigating hundreds of alleged dicamba drift cases since 2017. Last year, despite tightening label restrictions and mandatory training, drift investigations in Indiana were higher than ever at 178.
Yet, Indiana’s 2019 pales in comparison to the year Illinois had. The No. 1 soybean-producing state’s dicamba-related complaints rocketed to 724 from 330 the prior year, and from 246 in 2017.
Initially, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency engaged readily with pesticide officials across many soybean-growing states, holding weekly conference calls to hear them out on the surging reports of injury not only to crops, but to neighboring trees, orchards, and vineyards. It made field visits to seven states to meet with growers, researchers, and regulators.
Then, in 2018, the agency checked out, so to speak, when it renewed the label on dicamba-resistant technologies through the end of 2020.
“The states have had numerous, ongoing conversations with EPA to talk about these things, and it’s like picking up the phone and hearing, ‘ah-ha, ah-ha, ah-ha.’ I don’t want to say they don’t care,” Thostenson explains. He points out that the agency is awaiting the new data and monitoring requirements registrants will submit this fall. That data will encompass field studies of off-site movement of dicamba, studies to investigate temperature effects on volatility of dicamba, studies on ecological effects on non-target plants, and more (see the full list on p. 23 of the EPA decision).
After taking this information into consideration, “I would be surprised if 2021 looks the same. I have to believe there will be changes in the registration,” Thostenson affirms.
In response to a CropLife inquiry on how it will weigh out the issues with regard to re-registration of dicamba, an EPA spokesperson said, via email, “EPA will review all pertinent information from states, pesticide manufacturers, farmers, and other stakeholders to better understand dicamba’s impact on the 2019 growing season. EPA will continue to work to balance the various inputs to develop protective dicamba measures.”
Despite the undercurrent of fatigue and frustration with the “almost ludicrous labels” of XtendiMax products, Mueller says: “The more closely I have worked with the EPA, the more impressed I am with how this under-funded agency is producing good decisions under difficult circumstances than I thought previously. While politics still is involved in the process, the technical side, based on their statutory guidance, is followed to a good decision.” He adds, “Having traveled to other countries, I can clearly share my belief that our pesticide registration process, while not perfect, is far superior to any other country or group of countries.”
The 2020 crop year, we hope, will move the needle in a positive direction for all stakeholders.
In the meantime, please stay tuned over the next month for the twice-weekly edition of Dicamba Update. We’ll do our best to keep you posted on any changes to regulations and offer diverse perspectives on relevant issues such as social impact, enforcement efforts, weed resistance, tank-mixing, and other dicamba research findings. For reference, check out prior-year issues of Dicamba Update.
Email the author at [email protected] with your thoughts, feedback, and questions.
Subscribe Today For
