Arkansas Moves to Ban Monsanto’s Blockbuster Herbicide

Defying a lawsuit from the seed and pesticide giant, Arkansas put its foot down.

Tractor spraying soybean field at springfotokostic/Getty Images

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Update (11/20/2017): The Missouri Department of Agriculture has joined its Arkansas counterpart in limiting dicamba use during the 2018 growing season. In a statement  released last week, the Missouri ag agency announced it would ban the use of Engenia, a “low volatility” dicamba formulation marketed by the German chemical giant BASF, after July 15. For 10 counties clustered in the state’s southeastern corner, known as the Bootheel, where off-target dicamba damage was reportedly heaviest in 2017, the cut-off date will be June 1. The department said it “anticipates” issuing similar restrictions on the other two low-volatility dicamba formulations on the market, Monsanto’s Xtendimax and DowDupont’s Fexapan. 

The farm-country showdown over an herbicide called dicamba, used on a genetically engineered seeds product marketed by Monsanto, just heated up. At a public meeting on Wednesday, the Arkansas State Plant Board voted by a vote of 10 to 3 to ban most applications of the weedkiller between April 16 and October 31. Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy, attended the meeting and gave a presentation defending the herbicide. 

The company, meanwhile, has a lawsuit pending, launched in October, seeking to “prevent the Plant Board from continuing to regulate the use of Monsanto’s new low-volatility dicamba herbicide.” Back on July 11, Arkansas banned dicamba for 120 days.  

The new ban, which awaits final approval from a state legislative subcommittee, would essentially halt use in Arkansas of Monsanto’s latest blockbuster seeds next year: soybean and cotton varieties engineered to withstand both dicamba and glyphosate. These products offer farmers the ability to to spray dicamba directly on crops, leaving them intact while weeds die. But soybeans and cotton don’t emerge until early May—after the ban kicks in. 

Arkansas acted because dicamba has a tendency to volatilize—that is,  after it has been applied, it’s prone to convert into a gas be carried from its intended site, potentially harming vegetation that gets in its path. The volatility problem increases as temperatures rise, hence the ban on use during warm months.

In response to the problem, Monsanto, as well as rival agrichemical giants BASF and DuPont, brought out “low-volatility” dicamba formulations, but this past growing season—the new seeds’ first year in widespread use—saw an explosion of complaints throughout the soybean belt of off-target damage. The Environmental Protection Agency reports 3.6 million acres of non-resistant soybeans alone were damaged by dicamba this year, as well as untold acres of tomatoes, watermelon, cantaloupe, vineyards, pumpkins, vegetables, tobacco, residential gardens, trees, and shrubs. 

Monsanto claims that any lasting damage to crops must have resulted from the questionable decisions of farmers themselves: either failing to apply the weed killer according to the label, failing to clean their herbicide tanks properly, or illegally relying on old version of dicamba. But weed specialists at land-grant universities throughout the soybean belt fiercely dispute that assessment, leading to an extraordinarily open public battle between university weed scientists and a massive seed/pesticide conglomerate, covered here by NPR’s Dan Charles. 

Meanwhile, the EPA is considering its own ban on dicamba after the 2018 growing season if the off-target damage problems continues. The agency’s approval of Monsanto’s and other companies so-called low-volatility formulations “automatically expire on November 9, 2018, unless EPA determines before that date that off-site incidents are not occurring at unacceptable frequencies or levels,” an agency spokesperson wrote in an email.

For Monsanto, the stakes are high. Back in 2015, the company invested around $975 million to expand dicamba production at a Louisiana facility. In an October note to investors, the company declared its new dicamba-resistant soybeans a “tremendous success” and vowed their acreage planted would double next year. 

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