IBJNews

Vegetable growers, Dow settle dispute over new herbicide

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A coalition of vegetable growers and food producers led by Indiana-based Red Gold Inc. will drop their opposition to a new herbicide developed by Indianapolis-based Dow AgroSciences LLC, the two sides announced Tuesday.

The Save Our Crops Coalition said in the statement that it would “amend” its previous requests that U.S. regulators conduct an environment review and convene a panel of outside advisers before approving Dow’s Enlist Weed Control System.

The coalition made those demands in April before the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Their concern was that Dow’s Enlist system uses an old herbicide called 2,4-D, which has a history of drifting from fields of corn and soybeans onto vegetables, grapes and trees, and killing them. In response, Dow officials insisted they had reformulated 2,4-D to cut down such drifting by 90 percent.

Since the coalition raised an alarm, the two sides spent time discussing Dow’s published research on how much its reformulation of 2,4-D limits drifting. Also, Dow has developed more detailed plans for educating farmers on “best practices” for applying 2,4-D near sensitive crops and reaffirmed its commitment to investigate cases of damage caused by drifting of the herbicide.

Dow also promised to include additional commitments to such programs in its labeling for the Enlist product.

The coalition “believes that commitments made by Dow AgroSciences represent substantial measures to mitigate potential non-target plant damage impacts from herbicide spray drift and volatilization associated with 2,4-D tolerant crops,” Tuesday’s joint press statement said.

Dow has yet to win approval for its Enlist system, which also includes genetically modified seeds for soybeans that tolerate the 2,4-D herbicide. The Enlist product is intended to help farmers whose fields have developed weeds that are resistant to the leading herbicide, Round-Up, made by St. Louis-based Monsanto Co.

Dow expects its Enlist system, including 2,4-D and related seeds, will generate more than $1 billion in earnings over the product's life cycle. Dow also plans to launch genetically modified seeds for corn and cotton as part of the Enlist system.

Monsanto is also developing a new system of soybean seeds that tolerant the herbicide dicamba. The Save Our Crops Coalition has also objected to that new product for similar reasons that it opposed Dow’s Enlist system.

"We have appreciated Dow’s commitment to prevent off-target injury," wrote Steve Smith, director of agriculture at tomato company Red Gold, who has been serving as chairman of the coalition, in an e-mail. "The situation with dicamba has not changed at all and remains a major concern for not only the specialty crop industry but for rural homeowners and gardeners."

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT