This Weed Killer Is Wreaking Havoc on America’s Crops

Is Monsanto profiting off the problem?

Gary Taxali

When farmer Darvin Bentlage surveyed his southwestern Missouri soybean fields in August, he knew something was amiss in one of them. “I’ve been looking at soybeans for about 60 years, and these didn’t look right,” he says. The plants’ leaves had shriveled upward, taking the shape of little cups: a telltale sign they’d been exposed to dicamba—a potent herbicide that Bentlage does not use. It had wafted onto his farm from his neighbors’ fields.

Bentlage is hardly alone. By mid-October, state departments of agriculture nationwide had received 2,708 complaints from soybean farmers who claimed their fields had been damaged by wayward dicamba. Some 3.6 million acres had been affected, an unprecedented case of herbicides gone rogue. The Missouri, Arkansas, and Tennessee agriculture departments all temporarily restricted or banned dicamba (several more states will do so in 2018), and farmers launched at least four class-action suits demanding restitution from dicamba-makers. The company at the center of the firestorm was Monsanto—which in October struck back with its own lawsuit, seeking to halt an Arkansas regulation that limits dicamba use.

This spring, the dicamba wars will likely intensify. What gives? Back in 2016, the seed and pesticide giant rolled out soybeans genetically engineered to withstand not one but two herbicides: glyphosate, branded as Roundup, and dicamba. It was a blockbuster: By the summer of 2017, 20 million acres—nearly a quarter of US soybeans, and more than 6 percent of all US land devoted to crops—were covered with Monsanto’s novel soybeans.

In October, company executives hailed the debut as a “tremendous success” and told investors they hoped the product would conquer two-thirds of the US soybean crop. If Monsanto hits those growth targets, it will add up to $350 million in revenue within just two years.

And investors can bank on precedent. Back in the late ’90s, Monsanto released corn and soybeans—the two crops that cover about half of US farmland—that had been genetically tweaked to tolerate Roundup. The pitch: Spray Monsanto’s wonder chemical and all those pesky weeds will vanish, leaving the genetically modified crops to flourish. By 1999, more than half of US soybean plantings were “Roundup Ready.” Ten years later, herbicide-resistant seeds had spread to 91 percent of soybean plantings and 68 percent of corn.

There was just one big Darwinian problem. Hit any crop with a fatal dose of the same poison year in and year out, and most plants will promptly die. But a few genetic freaks will survive, passing the trait to offspring—ultimately allowing resistance genes to proliferate.

Predictably, a plague of Roundup-resistant weeds swept through farm country, so in 2016 Monsanto introduced Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans, designed to fend off not just Roundup, but also dicamba, an older, more toxic herbicide. And scientists expect dicamba resistance to rise. But the more urgent problem is that unlike glyphosate, dicamba is volatile. That is, after it has been applied, it’s prone to convert into a gas and be carried on the wind to nearby fields. In addition to soybeans, vineyards, home gardens, and oak forests have been hit by dicamba drift.

Monsanto, along with other companies, is selling a new, supposedly low-volatility dicamba formulation. It insists that any off-target damage is due to user error. But several independent weed scientists have disputed Monsanto’s assessment, arguing that volatility is a major driver of the problem. University of Missouri plant pathologist Kevin Bradley says his research shows that in the warm summer months, even a low-volatility dicamba formulation can remain in the air and float to an unintended target as many as four days after application. Aaron Hager, a University of Illinois weed scientist, says that in at least half the affected acres he observed in his state in 2017, the damage was “too uniform to be explained by anything else.”

In early November, Environmental Protection Agency officials warned in a meeting with herbicide-makers that they could lose dicamba approval if their products continued to damage crops. And Bradley says growers might spray less dicamba in 2018 to avoid trouble with their neighbors. But on the flip side, more farmers may buy the double-resistant seeds, to protect themselves from dicamba. Indeed, Bentlage says, one seed dealer recently hit him with this pitch: “You might as well buy some dicamba seeds. You know your neighbor’s gonna spray it—you might as well buy it, too, to keep from getting damaged.” In other words: Nice little soybean crop you have there; be a shame if something bad happened to it.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate