
Monsanto’s Weed Killer, Dicamba, Divides Farmers - Futurebot
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/business/monsanto-dicamba-weed-killer.html?module=WatchingPortal&region=c-column-middle-span-region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=thumb_square&state=standard&contentPlacement=12&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F09%2F21%2Fbusiness%2Fmonsanto-dicamba-weed-killer.html&eventName=Watching-article-click
======
mikehain
I've been recently enjoying a YouTube channel by a guy who turned his yard
into a sustainable "food forest"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng-
VskDFPpM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng-VskDFPpM)

That is the video that led me to it, but after I saw it I went back through
his video history to see how he got the whole project started and to see his
progress over the years. He has a video in there where he recommends a series
of books that he learned from, like Albert Howard's "An Agricultural
Testament," Sepp Holzer's "Permaculture," and Masanobu Fukuoka's "One Straw
Revolution." I've gotten started reading the first two and they're really
great books.

~~~
tryingagainbro
His garden, is great for a snack or two, let's be serious about the rest.
Grains, meat etc not gonna grow in a "forest" and one way or another we need
those calories. Like or not we're gonna be 9 billion soon and they will need
to eat.

~~~
Dylanfm
I don't think this post is suggesting that all agriculture should take place
in food forests. That's obviously not going to suit some species and would not
be a balanced approach.

Folks definitely get yields of more than a snack or 2 out of food forests.
Growing food from perennials in a multi-layered food forest is very efficient
(minimum inputs), resilient (diverse layers designed to support each other,
plants that are of age and established, healthy soil) and has many outputs
(food, timber etc). Bill Mollison explains the birth of the idea here [0].

I am convinced that they are a key piece of the future if we are to feed the 9
billion people you speak of. I am also becoming convinced that industrial
agriculture's tendency to plant vast amounts of monocultures does not have a
place in that future.

Food forests are promoted through permaculture. The entirety of a permaculture
farm wouldn't usually be dedicated to a forest like this. Grains have a place.
So does meat.

There are plenty of permaculture farms out there producing meat, and it's not
uncommon for this to take place in woodland. Within a forest you may find pigs
and poultry[1]. As a part of a permaculture farm's systems there may be
pastured cattle, poultry[2][3] and so on. Within this sphere you find farms
like Mastodon Valley[4], where cattle are a key part of their regenerative
agriculture. Then you have ponds designed for fish[5].

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrtJbk8_GY8&t=16m20s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrtJbk8_GY8&t=16m20s)

[1]
[https://youtu.be/GVQ8TUpvnDY?t=3m28s](https://youtu.be/GVQ8TUpvnDY?t=3m28s)
(woodland in this case, not a food forest)

[2]
[https://youtu.be/3Knn7ZH4Tiw?t=39m28s](https://youtu.be/3Knn7ZH4Tiw?t=39m28s)
(a system where chickens follow cows in pasture)

[3]
[https://youtu.be/eFujalK2jHg?t=32m12s](https://youtu.be/eFujalK2jHg?t=32m12s)
(using chickens to disturb an area in prep for establishing a new section of a
food forest... continue watching for a few minutes to see an impressive
chicken-pinning dog!)

[4] [https://mastodonvalleyfarm.com](https://mastodonvalleyfarm.com)

[5]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2B2Nyji7v0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2B2Nyji7v0)
(establishing a fish pond and using cows from the farm as helpers)

------
whalesalad
Dicamba is horrible stuff. The drift is a serious issue and is only going to
get worse. Obviously Monsanto is gonna cry fowl here and act like they aren’t
to blame – but the fact of the matter is that they are a giant in a small pool
of seed and chemical companies. Farmers are stuck using this stuff if they
want to keep their yields up. Unfortunately the surrounding ecosystem will
suffer and the vicious cycle towards the mono crop continues.

All of this stems from our insane deep-rooted dependence on corn and soybeans.

~~~
snarf21
Similar but different problems in India and around the world. The only way to
keep yields up to feed their population is to continue to ramp the fertilizer
which continues to destroy the soil requiring ever increasing fertilizer.

We need to fix this and soon but it is "someone else's problem".

------
exabrial
How come when it comes to the environment/global warming, the predominant
approach is "we believe in science", but when it comes to organic foods, GMOs,
and vaccines the "science is questionable"?

~~~
vvanders
The majority of anti-GMO people I know don't debate the science, they
generally want to ban them for two reasons:

1\. Overuse of pesticides leads to tolerance which leads to an escalation
which is some of what you see in this article.

2\. One or two large corporations controling the vast majority of food
production for the US. Gains in farming are awesome, but they shouldn't be at
the expense of autonomy of the farmers who bring us the food.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Genetic modifications are useful for more than pesticide resistance. We could
have better, riper tomatoes in stores if the Flavr Savr hadn't been attacked
by alarmists. Instead we get ethylene treated junk.

~~~
dxhdr
From Wikipedia:

"The Flavr Savr turned out to disappoint researchers ... as the antisensed PG
gene had a positive effect on shelf life, but not on the fruit's firmness, so
the tomatoes still had to be harvested like any other unmodified vine-ripe
tomatoes. An improved flavor, later achieved through traditional breeding of
Flavr Savr and better tasting varieties, would also contribute to selling
Flavr Savr at a premium price at the supermarket.

...

The failure of the Flavr Savr has been attributed to Calgene's inexperience in
the business of growing and shipping tomatoes."

Sounds like Flavr Savrs were just a failure. I don't see anything about
alarmists.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
It's been 20+ years. Any flaws could have been worked out by now.

~~~
KGIII
I prefer this example:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice)

The controversy section is very telling. While not directly quoted in the
article, I've seen/heard people argue, "It hasn't been proven safe!" Well,
yeah? Of course it hasn't. Nothing is ever proven safe, really. It'd be much
easier to demonstrate the benefits if, you know, they actually let trials go
forward.

Some trials have been started, but people keep protesting and doing stuff like
burning the fields.

~~~
Chathamization
> Some trials have been started, but people keep protesting and doing stuff
> like burning the fields.

That's not the reason why Golden Rice has been a failure[1]:

> While activists did destroy one Golden Rice test plot in a 2013 protest, it
> is unlikely that this action had any significant impact on the approval of
> Golden Rice.

> “Destroying test plots is a dubious way to express opposition, but this was
> only one small plot out of many plots in multiple locations over many
> years,” he said.

Rather:

> As Stone and Glover note in the article, researchers continue to have
> problems developing beta carotene-enriched strains that yield as well as
> non-GMO strains already being grown by farmers.

[1] [https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-
golden...](https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-
falls-short-lifesaving-promises/)

------
sdfgelgh43oito3
Monsanto is such scum. Selling the poison and the antidote... Forcing the
antidote onto those that might come in contact with the poison; Unethical,
cartel behavior that makes us all unhealthy.

~~~
bhouston
There is a lot of evidence of Monsanto pushing their agenda behind the scenes:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-
sway-o...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-
research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html)

And it seems like their stuff is truly dangerous:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-
roundup...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup-
safety-lawsuit.html)

------
cmrdporcupine
I am a small grape grower, and on various mailing lists on this topic.

People who grow grapes (or tomatoes, or anything but soy/corn for that matter)
are really upset and angry about the growth in the use of Dicamba.

It's already very frustrating each year to find your plants damaged from drift
from rampant glyphosate use. But the degree of damage from dicamba is just off
the charts.

This article spends a lot of time talking about Dicamba's effects on other
cash crop farmers. But it doesn't talk about those who choose to grow other
things. The agriculture industry already acts like the only thing that matters
is cash crop corn/soy rotation farmers. Drift reports basically amount to a
shrug. That's very very frustrating.

~~~
Chris_Jay
Has anyone tried to sue for lost profits over Dicamba use?

------
jMyles
> Environmentalists and some weed scientists worry that making seeds resistant
> to more weed killers will increase the use of pesticides.

The NYT has some strangely poor writing sometimes. This _whole article_ is
about GMO seeds designed specifically to allow application of pesticides.
Nobody disputes that it will increase the use of pesticides - that's the whole
point, as explained the rest of this article other than this paragraph.

~~~
spaceseaman
How is pointing out that fact poor writing? It's a fact. Environmentalists and
weed scientists _are_ worried that it will increase the use of pesticides...

The article then goes on to do just as you say, which allows the reader to
make the conclusion about whether those environmentalists concerns are valid.
Since this is a newspaper article, it would be improper style to directly make
the implication on the part of the author over whether those concerns are
valid. It's simply their job to report such concerns exist.

Some people just love to criticize the NYT.

~~~
jMyles
It gives the impression that only some people project that more pesticides
will be the result. But that's not so - the ability to freely apply pesticides
is _the whole point_ of this product. And it's also what makes the product
sordid and controversial in the first place.

The sentence before the one I quoted is "But weeds are becoming more resistant
to Roundup, so the industry is developing seeds that are tolerant to more
herbicides."

Here's an example of a better and more professional way to follow that
sentence in order to make reference to these concerns:

'This application of a larger volume of pesticides - including those designed
to eliminate these newly Roundup-resistant plants, has caused concern among
some environmentalists and weed scientists.'

So the difference? That structure follows directly from the rest of the
article and doesn't leave any impression that there's controversy over whether
there will be more pesticides.

~~~
cmrdporcupine
The concern is more than from environmentalists and weed scientists.

It is from other farmers who are growing things other than the target crop. In
some places it is in an urgent crisis for them.

~~~
jMyles
Right - that too. That's another reason that this sentence is bizarre.

------
searine
Speaking as a geneticist, these GM traits are the most important tool in our
toolbox, and it needs to be rolled out as fast a possible.

It's a matter of evolution, and stopping resistance. Like HIV, cancer,
antibiotics, or any other biologic system, there is a necessity for multiple
modes of action.

Plants evolve very slowly. This is good. It means they adapt to things like
roundup very slowly. It took decades to adapt to glyphosate, and even today it
is still widely effective. However, since it is a single mode of action,
resistance is inevitable.

The trick is that if you increase modes of action, you raise the cost of
natural selection to the point that the species simply cannot adapt. Ever.

We need glyphosate, 2,4-D AND dicamba resistance, all together so that we can
stop any one chemical from being resistant. Stopping resistance means having a
full toolbox, and a full effective toolbox means less overall chemicals on
fields.

~~~
stevenwoo
Um, I distinctly remember reading about insects evolving to adapt to changes
brought about by humanity in one generation and just quickly did a search and
found a study that showed significant _plant_ adaptations within four
generations to insect infestations (and immediate changes within one
generation)
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121004141745.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121004141745.htm)
So what is the difference between this reported study and what a geneticist
means by plants evolve slowly?

~~~
searine
>Um, I distinctly remember reading about insects evolving to adapt to changes
brought about by humanity in one generation

Literally impossible. Mutations can't magically move to high frequency in one
generation. The article you said this 'Plant populations began to diverge
significantly in response to insect attack in as few as three to four
generations'. Not one. Yes intense single mode-of-action selection can change
allele frequencies in a short period of time, but that is much different than
adapting to novel challenges.

The types of adaptations you are talking about are likely what we call
"standing variation". Dormant mutations at intermediate frequency that become
fit during intermittent circumstances. Like a stressful year, or a certain
predator that comes every decade.

In the case of chemicals however, we are dealing with an entirely novel
mechanism, with little to no standing variation to draw upon. Thus evolution
in this circumstance is slow.

------
drawkbox
People are scared that AI will take us out, but in actuality it will probably
be a company that has a monopoly that gets too boisterous and does us all in.
That might be combined with AI sentient beings, but ultimately they will be
doing it just for that monopolistic corporation's mission statement to
eliminate all competitive threats.

~~~
marcosdumay
How can a company's monopoly destroy humanity without the protection of an AI
police force? Are you expecting the population to go along with it?

------
caf
_But weeds are becoming more resistant to Roundup, so the industry is
developing seeds that are tolerant to more herbicides._

Isn't this a classic Red Queen's Race?

~~~
searine
Yes.

The only way off the treadmill is to stack as many traits as possible so that
evolution doesn't have time to adapt.

This was the key to effective treatment of HIV for example. Anti-retroviral
cocktails of 3-5 drugs, each with a different mode of action.

We're lucky though, plants evolve slow, so we only need a few different traits
to slow/stop evolution.

~~~
viggity
furthermore, farmers are forced to plant "refuge" plots - plots that do not
get GMO seeds, nor get herbicide/pesticide treatments. This ensures that there
is plenty of resistance-less plants/insects left in the gene pool to cross
breed with any plants/insects that have developed a resistance - there by
preventing the resistant plants/insects from taking over and becoming
dominant. Quite brilliant when you think about it.

~~~
caf
Given that the dispute that is the subject of the original article here is
about dicamba drifting onto non-sprayed fields in the local area, some
scepticism is warranted as to how well those refuge plots would work.

------
Kyragem
Monsanto needs to do a 180 and develop & research low cost weeding robots. GMO
engineering solutions are only a stopgap measure

~~~
mnw21cam
Agreed. Plants can develop resistance to herbicides, but they can't really
develop resistance to being dug up.

Although the dandelions and bindweed in my garden would be prominent counter-
examples.

~~~
topspin
I suspect that 10 years from now the notion of carpet bombing a field with
anti-weed chemicals will seem stupid as simple weed hunting robots deal with
the problem automatically.

Dandelions need sunlight too. Assuming your weed bot keeps the plant reduced
to a leafless stub the roots will die eventually.

------
mi100hael
The problem in AR & MO essentially stems from Monsanto's new version of
dicamba that's supposed to reduce a lot of this overspray damage not yet being
approved by the EPA, so growers have decided to just spray the old stuff
that's known to cause this kind of damage despite being told not to.

[http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/08/01/487809643/cri...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/08/01/487809643/crime-
in-the-fields-how-monsanto-and-scofflaw-farmers-hurt-soybeans-in-arkansas)

~~~
plandis
I believe that NPRs Planet Money did an episode on this a few months ago.

~~~
pjl
It was a great listen!

“The conflict was no longer farmer versus weed, but also farmer versus farmer.
When his neighbors illegally sprayed the pesticide, Wallace reported it. After
harvest, Wallace was shot and killed.

On today's show, a murder mystery – about how a weed divided neighbors and led
to Mike Wallace's death.”

Here’s a link to the episode:
[http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/06/02/531272125/episo...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/06/02/531272125/episode-775-the-
pigweed-killer)

------
eksemplar
Farmers need to decide if they want a future or not. Milking the earth for
profit while poisoning the world is a crime against humanity.

~~~
dbcurtis
Farmers decide if they want a future or not every time they pencil out the
profits for the coming crop year. Its a commodity business. Grain farmers have
zero pricing power. They can increase their top line by increasing yield. They
can reduce costs to increase margins.

It's not a simple problem to solve. Moralizing about someone else's business
without understanding the fundamental economics isn't going to solve it. It's
a public policy question in the end.

I have skin in the game. I own row crop land in Iowa and Minnesota that is
operated by local farmers. My leases require good land stewardship and I only
lease to farmer/operators that are willing to meet the conditions. For the
majority of farmers, good stewardship of the land and environment is part of
their ethos. There are obvious exceptions. We should do something about the
exceptions, and that is where it becomes a public policy question.

IMHO, herbacide drift is fundamentally a form of trespass when it drifts out
of your own field. Let's start with treating drift as trespass. Cattle
breaking the fence is treated that way, the maintainer of the fence is liable
for damages. Keep your chemicals behind your own property line.

------
MentallyRetired
It divides farmers and they wanna put it in our food? Jesus H!

