Home 禄 Opinion 禄 Foreign Views
Corporate secrecy preceded US weed killer crisis
Print Edition
As the US growing season entered its peak this summer, farmers began posting startling pictures on social media: fields of beans, peach orchards and vegetable gardens withering away.
The photographs served as early warnings of a crisis that has damaged millions of acres of farmland. New versions of the herbicide dicamba developed by Monsanto and BASF, according to farmers, have drifted across fields to crops unable to withstand it, a charge authorities are investigating.
As the crisis intensifies, new details provided to Reuters by independent researchers and regulators, and previously unreported testimony by a company employee, demonstrate the unusual way Monsanto introduced its product.
Typically, when a company develops a new agricultural product, it commissions its own tests and shares the results and data with regulators. It also provides product samples to universities for additional scrutiny. Regulators and university researchers then work together to determine the safety of the product.
In this case, Monsanto denied requests by university researchers to study its XtendiMax with VaporGrip for volatility 鈥 a measure of its tendency to vaporize and drift across fields.
The researchers interviewed by Reuters said Monsanto provided samples of XtendiMax before it was approved by the EPA. However, the samples came with contracts that explicitly forbade volatility testing. The researchers declined to provide Reuters a copy of the Monsanto contracts, saying they were not authorized to do so.
Monsanto鈥檚 Vice President of Global Strategy, Scott Partridge, said the company prevented the testing because it was unnecessary. He said the company believed the product was less volatile than a previous dicamba formula that researchers found could be used safely.
Monsanto employee Boyd Carey, an agronomist, laid out the company鈥檚 rationale for blocking the independent research at a hearing of the Arkansas Plant Board鈥檚 Pesticide Committee in the summer of 2016. A meeting summary by the Arkansas Legislature鈥檚 Joint Budget Committee described Carey鈥檚 testimony as follows: 鈥淏oyd Carey is on record on August 8 stating that neither the University of Arkansas nor any other university was given the opportunity to test VaporGrip in fear that the results may jeopardize the federal label.鈥
Efforts to reach Carey were not successful. Monsanto declined to comment on his testimony. To be sure, complaints about damaged crops are still under investigation and there is no evidence that independent testing of XtendiMax鈥檚 volatility would have altered the course of the crisis. But it would have given regulators a more complete picture of the formula鈥檚 properties as they decided if and how to let farmers use it, agriculture experts said.
In the end, the EPA approved the product without the added testing in September. It said it made its decision after reviewing company-supplied data, including some measuring volatility.
Concerned about damage
鈥淓PA鈥檚 analysis of the data has shown reduced volatility potential with newer formulations,鈥 the EPA said in a July 27 statement. However, EPA spokeswoman Amy Graham told Reuters the agency is 鈥渧ery concerned about the recent reports of crop damage鈥 and is reviewing restrictions on dicamba labels.
Monsanto Chief Technology Officer Robert Fraley said, 鈥淲e firmly believe that our product if applied according to the instructions on the label will not move off target and damage anyone.鈥
Companies can limit independent testing because the substances are proprietary. When samples are provided to researchers, lawyers hammer out contracts detailing how testing will be conducted and results will be handled, but rarely do agreements limit what the products can be tested for, according to researchers interviewed by Reuters.
For instance, BASF, which introduced its rival herbicide, Engenia, around the same time, said it allowed several university researchers to evaluate its 鈥渙ff-target impact and application parameters.鈥
The EPA did not answer questions about whether it noticed a lack of input from university researchers about XtendiMax鈥檚 volatility or whether it requested such testing. It also did not address whether the lack of independent research played into its decision to give the product an abridged two-year registration, less than the 20 years experts say is more common. The agency did the same for BASF鈥檚 Engenia.
鈥淭he EPA placed time limits on the registration to allow the agency to either let it expire or to easily make the necessary changes in the registration if there are problems,鈥 Graham, the EPA spokeswoman, said.
The article is from Reuters. Shanghai Daily condensed the article.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 娌狪CP璇侊細娌狪CP澶05050403鍙-1
- |
- 浜掕仈缃戞柊闂讳俊鎭湇鍔¤鍙瘉锛31120180004
- |
- 缃戠粶瑙嗗惉璁稿彲璇侊細0909346
- |
- 骞挎挱鐢佃鑺傜洰鍒朵綔璁稿彲璇侊細娌瓧绗354鍙
- |
- 澧炲肩數淇′笟鍔＄粡钀ヨ鍙瘉锛氭勃B2-20120012
Copyright 漏 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
