Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday February 08 2019, @12:28AM   Printer-friendly
from the Domino-Theory-in-Practice dept.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/02/07/691979417/is-fear-driving-sales-of-dicamba-proof-soybeans

The biggest, most valuable new technology on Midwestern farms these days is a new family of soybean seeds. But some farmers say they're buying these seeds partly out of fear.

A new lawsuit claims that the company Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, violated antitrust laws when it introduced the seeds. Bayer is asking the court to dismiss the complaint.

The seeds go by the trade name Xtend. They're worth an estimated billion dollars a year to Bayer.

For those who don't want to read or listen to the story, the short summary is as follows: Dicamba is an herbicide used as a weed killer. It is thought to spread far outside its targeted area. (Many academics and scientists say that is proven fact, Bayer disagrees, but irrespective of the truth of the matter, many farmers think it does.) Therefore after one farmer decides to use these seeds and herbicide, their neighbors need to use the same seeds out of fear of losing their crop to dicamba. Now this farmer can use dicamba as well and has no reason not to, so they do so, and the cycle repeats.

Resistance is... futile?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 09 2019, @01:54AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 09 2019, @01:54AM (#798648) Journal

    Don't be too daft, you know better.

    Fortunately, I anticipated your concern by providing yet another quality post to raise the intellectual level of this thread.

    Pb, Po, RoundUp exposure in tiny quantities is known to be high detrimental to humans, yet the first three do not get many defenders

    Except, of course, when the use of those metals is valuable such as various sorts of solder alloys or nuclear battery construction. The use is regulated to reduce human exposure, of course, because golly, these things are toxic.

    while a lot of people will take money to say you should let farmers put the fourth on your food.

    Sorry, that's not a valid use case. There's no reason to massively hose down my steaks from the supermarket with herbicides, if only because weeds don't grow on refrigerated meat. You're speaking of application of herbicides much earlier in the season and exposure to trace amounts of residual herbicides in the agricultural products which is a very different situation. There we need to consider the dose, not merely babble that toxins are toxic.

    Utility vs risk : my original point about actual yield improvements vs toxicity, and the need of those extra bushels beyond extra farmer cash (see the Europeans massively discarding their overproduction a few decades back).

    Or those Europeans could fix their agricultural subsidies without having anything to do with herbicide usage. BTW, extra farmer cash is a strong indication of the utility of an approach.