Slashdot Mirror
Monsanto Attacks Scientists After Studies Show Trouble For Weedkiller Dicamba (npr.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: Dicamba, an old weedkiller that is being used in new ways, has thrust Kevin Bradley, a professor of weed science at the University of Missouri, and a half-dozen other university weed scientists into the unfamiliar role of whistleblower, confronting what they believe are misleading and scientifically unfounded claims by one of the country's biggest seed and pesticide companies: Monsanto. The tensions between Monsanto and the nation's weed scientists actually began several years ago, when Monsanto first moved to make dicamba the centerpiece of a new weedkilling strategy. The company tweaked the genes in soybeans and cotton and created genetically modified varieties of those crops that can tolerate doses of dicamba. (Normally, dicamba kills those crops.) This allowed farmers to spray the weedkiller directly on their soybean or cotton plants, killing the weeds while their crops survived. It's an approach that Monsanto pioneered with crops that were genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate, or Roundup. After two decades of heavy exposure to glyphosate, however, devastating weeds like Palmer amaranth, or pigweed, developed resistance to it. So farmers are looking for new weedkilling tools. Dicamba, however, has a well-known defect. It's volatile; it tends to evaporate from the soil or vegetation where it has been sprayed, creating a cloud of plant-killing vapor that can spread in unpredictable directions. It happens more in hot weather, and Monsanto's new strategy inevitably would mean spraying dicamba in the heat of summer. Monsanto and two other chemical companies, BASF and DuPont, announced that they had solved this problem with new "low-volatility" formulations of dicamba that don't evaporate as easily. Yet the companies -- especially Monsanto -- made it difficult for university scientists to verify those claims with independent tests before the products were released commercially.
Scientists are only in it for the money.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
WTF, I could of been a weed scientist?
i won't eat that soybean slush called "health food".
Alway making their filthy tainted millions off the back of poor almost bankrupt Monsanto.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Seeing how weeds are apparently adapting, in this case, I would rather compare the use of genetic engineering (targeting selective pesticide resistance) to the abuse of antibiotics. It may provide the intended results in the short term, but long-term systematic (and excessive) use seems to result in the much accelerated apparition of stronger pests, creating risks that may be very substantial and yet have generally not been assessed beforehand.
In other words, it’s not about science versus popular belief, it’s about serious risk assessment versus quick money grab.
I listened to this podcast about dicamba last summer. It was kind of interesting and fairly relevant to this story.
Just a slight quibble with the language that's commonly used when it comes to discussing weed resistance to herbicides. Weeds don't "develop" resistance to chemicals. Rather there are certain individuals in the plant population which, due to genetic variations, have natural resistance to herbicides (any specific herbicide, even ones not invented yet). As herbicides kill non-resistant weeds, the ones left behind are the ones that can tolerate and metabolize the chemical. And those are the plants that put down seeds into the soil. The non-resistant plants never put down any seed. So it's chemical use that selects for these plants and seeds for future generation. It's not like the plants are smart, or are being mutated by chemicals, nor are they being genetically modified, like the corn and soybeans are.
I saw research the other day that showed that after four seasons in a row of applying a Group 2 wild oat herbicide, you can see your wild oat population go from 0.5% naturally resistant to over 95% resistant, all because of the selection pressure. Resistant plants put down the seeds which grow the next year.
And it's not just chemicals that select in this manner. Hand weeding has the same effect. In China hand weeding of a particular weed in rice paddies has selected for weeds that look identical to rice seedlings. It's become quite a problem! I imagine in the future if a robot placed all the seeds and knew the location precisely, it could mechanically remove all plants not growing in that exact spot. That is probably the only sustainable way to control weeds in the long term. All other methods lead to this selection for resistance, or selection for confusing the weeder (person or robot).
I think this is an area for future robotics development to really shine. It would be great if a robot could tirelessly weed around crops instead of relying on massive doses of chemicals and/or genetically-modified crops. Eventually, they might even help with pest control, like zapping harmful pests with a laser while helpful bugs (like bees, ladybugs, etc) are left alone.
Beyond the obvious challenge of getting such tech developed (you can already see some early prototypes and research), the trick is whether such devices can be effectively scaled up to the required industrial scale of modern farms, and reduced in cost enough for it to make financial sense to switch to such a technology. Modern farms already use a huge amount of very high-tech machinery, so I wouldn't be surprised if this eventually happened.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
> GMOs are almost as bad as vaccines. Both have no place in modern society. We must save our civilization from these horrors!
Generally, GMOs only make your Twinkies cheaper.
They are no great benefit to mankind. That's just bogus corporate propaganda.
Most GMO crops are fodder for junk food.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
My lawn's treatment is I pull up weeds as I see them, then throw grass seed down to fill it in. Crowding out the weeds has been easy to maintain and looks great.
It's serious risk analysis v.s. Quick power grab.
Duuude..... what if, like.... duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/german-preserves-see-76-percent-decline-flying-insects-180965328/
Palmer amaranth is potentially ideal crop, substitute for spinach, resilient and low-maintenance. All you have to do is add fertilizer. Instead of unsuccessfully fighting it, we should use it.
"Professor of weed science" is a real job. Unfortunately, it's a lot less exciting that it might sound.
All we have is a RWNJ trumpo or russian bot being butthurt about trump causing THIS fuckup.
Generally, GMOs only make your Twinkies cheaper.
They are no great benefit to mankind. That's just bogus corporate propaganda.
Most GMO crops are fodder for junk food.
Yeah, like cotton and soybeans (from TFA)? Your post is bogus propaganda.
GMOs allow much higher productivity from farmers which is not inconsequential given the world population. Granted, the overuse of pesticides, herbicides, and similar is quickly showing it's impact in the form of resistant strains (and killing bees, etc.). The issue we face is Monsanto seems to have such utter control over virtually all aspects of it's industry including approvals in areas like environmental impact, safety, etc. that problems are quickly surfacing in those areas.
The idea of 'organic food' for everyone is nonsense. First, because much organic food differs very little from 'normal' food since there's no real standards to apply and second, because we'd face food shortages if we tried to go backwards to broad use of inefficient farming methods.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
(In this case, unlike say the attacks on climate scientists, the attackers are at least not hiding who is funding them.)
See Poe's law.
Are you all autistic or what ?
Given that this is an internet forum, the answer to that question is no, not all, only about ten percent of us.
OK, maybe twenty.
If the Monsanto board of directors and executives were willing to have the land immediately adjacent to their own homes (where they and their families live full time) sprayed with the chemicals they produce, I would have no problem letting them use whatever weedkillers they want.
GMOs allow much higher productivity from farmers
That sounds great!
which is not inconsequential given the world population.
True, true...
Granted, the overuse of pesticides, herbicides, and similar is quickly showing it's impact in the form of resistant strains (and killing bees, etc.).
Hmm. See, therein lies the rub, right? Those resistant strains, and the impact to our most valuable commercial pollinators, add up to a significant negative impact on agriculture.
The idea of 'organic food' for everyone is nonsense. First, because much organic food differs very little from 'normal' food since there's no real standards to apply and second, because we'd face food shortages if we tried to go backwards to broad use of inefficient farming methods.
We have to go forwards in order to go backwards... in order to go forward. (And then we're doing the cha-cha.) Intensive, zero-tilth organic gardening produces higher per-acre yields than any other form of farming. But there is no denying that it is labor intensive even given the complete lack of mechanical tilth, which is replaced by planting crops (and other beneficial plants) with deep tap roots which become compost in-place. Appropriately to a nerd website, the solution to the labor problem is robotics.
Planting most crops in monocultures is beneficial only from a labor standpoint. It primarily permits us to use mechanical cultivation with relatively dumb machines. They're now up to the point where they can drive themselves up and down the rows, but what about when they can cut weeds and compost their heads (no need to pull them if you can cut them repeatedly), measure food quality (e.g. with laser spectrometry) and harvest based on ripeness... Plants grow better when you plant them with different plants with different needs. If we use intelligent machines (the term is used loosely, but typically) instead of dumb ones, we can plant crops in a way that actually improves both yields and quality whether we use organic techniques or not.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yeah, every young, asthmatic brainiac dreams of going into science for the money. Yeah, every Jewish mother pressures her firstborn to become the next Dr Botany Weedkill.
Unfortunately, even the most highly motivated shirker of the golddigger rat race ultimately learns that money is instrumental to opportunity.
The Faraday inflation of big science. It's a bitch. The old glory days of "hey, Mom, can I have some lemon juice?" are long gone.