The South Dakota Department of Agriculture said yesterday that as of April 30, “all pesticide products containing only dicamba, and having agricultural use labels, sold in South Dakota are classified as restricted use pesticides (RUPs).” That means farmers can’t buy or apply the 41 pesticides on this SDDA list without state certification.
The big three dicamba products discussed during last year’s widespread complaints about dicamba drift and damage to neighboring crops—Monsanto’s Xtendimax, BASF’s Engenia, and DuPont’s Fexapan—were classified as RUPs last October by the Trump EPA, which assures us that dicamba is safe for everyone:
4. Is dicamba safe?
When used according to label directions, dicamba is safe for everyone, including infants, the developing fetus, the elderly and more highly exposed groups such as agricultural workers. It also meets the safety standard for the environment, including endangered species. We assessed risks from dicamba to endangered species and found that there would be no effect on listed species from this active ingredient in the approved use area when the product is used according to label directions. The decision to register dicamba for use on GE cotton and soybean meets the rigorous Food Quality Protection Act standard [Environmental Protection Agency, “Registration of Dicamba for Use on Genetically Engineered Crops,” retrieved 2018.04.24].
The Trump EPA adopted this language on dicamba and applied RUP status to these dicamba products at the request of Monsanto:
“Since we proposed this in a voluntary fashion, we’re pleased with it,” Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy, said about the EPA rules in an interview [Emily Flitter and Tom Polansek, “U.S. Experts Doubt EPA Curbs on Monsanto, BASF Herbicides Will Halt Crop Damage,” Reuters, 2017.10.13].
Scott Partridge—that name rings a bell. Scott Partridge of St. Louis, Missouri, appears on Marty Jackley’s 2017 year-end campaign finance report supplement as a $1,000 donor. So do several other top Monsanto execs and three members of its go-to St. Louis law firm:
- Hugh Grant, chairman and CEO, St. Louis MO, $1,000.
- Robert Fraley, chief of GM crops, St. Louis MO, $1,000.
- Kerry Preete, exec VP and chief strategy officer, Chesterfield, MO, $500.
- David Snively, exec VP and general counsel, Town and Country, MO, $500
- Christopher Hohn, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, MO, $500.
- Jeffrey Masson, STL, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, MO, $500.
- Thomas Minogue, chairman of Thompson Coburn, Frontenac, MO, $1,500.
These individual donations come on top of $11,000 that Follow The Money says Monsanto’s PAC has given Jackley’s campaigns over the past several years. Bob Mercer noted that Monsanto’s PAC poured $5,000 into Jackley’s gubernatorial campaign in 2017. Monsanto’s PAC has given Kristi Noem $3,500 during her Congressional tenure but so far seems uninterested in her gubernatorial campaign.
Arkansas prohibits application of dicamba after April 15. Minnesota has adopted a June 20 cutoff date for applying dicamba. North Dakota says no dicamba after June 30. South Dakota appears not to have adopted a cutoff date, but tighter weather restrictions (i.e., don’t use dicamba when its windy or hot) mean smaller use windows:
According to the state’s data, and using weather data for 2017, if the 2018 rules were applied last year, sprayers would have had a window of only 10 percent of the days in May, 5 percent of June days and 17 percent of July. That means only 10, 5 and 17 percent of each of those months respectively could be spent spraying dicamba. For comparison, with the old labeling, applicators had more than half of May to spray [Jager Robinson, “Dicamba Rules Updated for Growing Season in South Dakota,” Tri-State Neighbor, 2018.02.23].
South Dakota applicators will need to maintain 110-foot buffer zones when applying normal dicamba, and 220-foot buffer zones when applying at Monsanto’s rate.
But remember, the government says dicamba is safe for everyone. And Monsanto evidently thinks Marty Jackley will be safest for dicamba and other Monsanto products.
Here is something to keep in mind about any Monsanto product and any stoopid pol that takes their money.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/03/15/unsealed-court-documents-suggest-collusion-between-monsanto-epa-pollute-science
Monsanto would ghost write favorable reviews of products and pay academics to initial the reports. At least since the 80’s and perhaps earlier.
What?! Collusion between Monsanto and the GOP?! I’m shocked! Shocked, I say!
Not really. Not at all. Since the advent of pres Sh*thole the GOP has put its slimy corruption on full display.
I keep saying in reference to them, Shamelessness Is Not a Virtue.