This particular pesticide has been a major force in crop management and
all potential replacements are way more troublesome. I have reservations regarding roundup in
particular because it is likely causation for the amphibian die-off. I am getting tired of the attacks aimed at
various useful protocols without any attempt whatsoever to propose a
replacement or creditable alternative.
I just mentioned my reservations on round up, but that does not mean
that it cannot be applied. What it does
mean though is that it should be applied only once every several years. Since it suppresses grasses and these will
not be reintroduced willingly, the seed bed should easily be kept weed free
there after. It is the negligent overuse
of these agents that drives problems.
If I were converting a field to organic farming, the last thing I would
do before starting is to apply roundup to effectively sterilize the soil. This way the transition over four years to
organic will not be outright impeded by the contained weed regime. I suspect that present conversions are all on
soils that have had a successful process of soils sterilization underway for
years. That makes organic practices
fairly doable.
Once the weed grasses are successfully suppressed, then 2-4-D comes
into its own. Every spring you merely
wait for the year's crop of broad leaf weeds to grow almost to flowering and
then douse them. That cleans out the
grain field.
Off course, it may make good sense today to actually grow canola with
the wheat and harvest both at the same time.
The resultant grain will have to be separated, but that is normally
called cleaning. That way the broadleaf
canola would suppress all other weeds as it does today as and outright weed.
The real take home here is that it takes originally sterile soils and
effective protocols using more than one plant type in order to sustain a weed
free field.
The enemy of berry production happens to be couch grass which will
choke out the canes in a couple of years, or keep a hoeing crew in the field
permanently. Modern berry production is
surely the result of the successful eradication of wild grasses.
It really is that big a battle.
Thus it is hard to be sympathetic when challenges are thrown out that
call for a full cessation of application without recognizing the problem
solved.
EPA Denies NRDC Petition on
2,4-D – Confirms safety of tolerances
(Kansas City, MO, April 10,
2012-AgNewsWire) – The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced
its denial of the 2008 petition by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
seeking to cancel 2,4-D herbicide registrations and revoke all the tolerances
for use.
“The impact of this decision
should not be understated,” said Jim Gray, executive director of the Industry
Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data. “EPA’s comprehensive review of one of the
most extensive scientific data bases of a pesticide confirmed the Agency’s
previous finding that the 2,4-D tolerances are acceptable.”
In its most recent decision,
the EPA stated: “After considering public comment received on the petition and
all the available studies, including a state-of-the-science one-generation
reproduction study, EPA is denying the request to revoke all tolerances and the
request to cancel all registrations.”
“This has been one of the most
widely used and successful herbicides in history and growers along with other
users around the U.S. and the world can continue to use it with confidence”,
added Gray. “EPA’s most recent decision is consistent with findings of other
authorities such as the World Health Organization, Health Canada ’s Pest
Management Regulatory Agency and the European Commission.”
The US EPA conducted a
thorough evaluation of all of the available information, including GLP studies,
peer-reviewed studies, as well as the anecdotal information submitted by the
pressure groups. This determination follows the 2005 Re-registration
Eligibility Decision which encompassed 17 years of scientific evaluation.
EPA Statements in Rejecting
the NRDC Petition
· “The one-gen study provides an in-depth
examination of 2,4-D’s potential for endocrine disruptor, neurotoxic, and
immunotoxic effects. This study and EPA’s comprehensive review confirmed EPA’s
previous finding that the 2,4-D tolerances are safe.”
· “Based on studies addressing endocrine
effects on wildlife species and the adequacy of personal protective equipment
for workers, the Agency concluded that the science behind our current
ecological and worker risk assessments for 2,4-D is sound and there is no basis
to change the registrations.”
About 2,4-D and the Research
Task Force
2,4-D, one of the most widely
used herbicides in the U.S. and worldwide, is applied to crops such as wheat,
corn, rice, soybeans, potatoes, sugar cane, pome fruits, stone fruits and nuts.
It controls invasive species in pastures, aquatic areas and federally protected
areas and broadleaf weeds in turf grass. An economic evaluation by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (NAPIAP Report 1-PA-96) concluded that the loss of
2,4-D would cost the U.S. economy $1.7 billion annually in higher food
production and weed control expenses. 2,4-D is a critical tool in the integrated
management of herbicide resistant weeds in crops.
The 2,4-D Task Force is made
up of those companies owning the technical registrations on the active
ingredient in 2,4-D herbicides. They are Dow AgroSciences ( USA ), Nufarm, Ltd.
( Australia ) and Agro-Gor Corporation ( USA & Argentina ).
The Task Force does not
conduct the research required by EPA and other pesticide regulators; it simply
funds the scientific research needed to meet all agency requirements. All
research funded by the Task Force is conducted under stringent Good Laboratory
Practice (GLP) requirements.
EPA’s decision and other
resources pertaining to 2,4-D may be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2012/2-4d-petition.html
And at:
www.24d.org
For additional information,
contact:
Jim Gray, Executive Director
Industry Task Force II on
2,4-D Research Data
1-800-345-5109
info@24d.org
Highlights of 2,4-D
Herbicide’s 67-year History
1945 – U.S. Patent No 2,390,941 is issued for
2,4-D to plant physiologist Dr. Franklin D. Jones of the American Chemical
Paint Company.
1964 – 54 million pounds of 2,4-D produced as
farmers and homeowners alike discover the benefits of effective weed control. Studies
at the time found that weeds typically destroyed 30 – 35 percent of crop
yields.
1970 – Plant scientists continue to find new uses
for 2,4-D in protecting crops, such as plant growth regulator on potatoes and
weed control for blueberries, cranberries, raspberries and strawberries.
1986 – EPA issues preliminary notification of
Special Review.
1988 – Beginning of reregistration data
development by the 2,4-D Task Force and review by EPA.
1996 – World Health Organization completes its
toxicological review of 2,4-D and determines the compound does not present a
risk to human health.
2001 – European Commission completes its
toxicological and environmental assessment of 2,4-D and states “. . .that the
plant protection products containing 2,4-D will fulfill the safety requirements
laid down in the Directive 91/414/EEC.”
2004 – The Henry Ford organization in
Dearborn , Michigan declares 2,4-D one of the
75 most important innovations in the previous 75 years.
2005 – Health
Canada ’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency
(PMRA) issues “Proposed Acceptability for Continued Registration” and
determines 2,4-D can be used safely on lawn and turf when label directions are
followed.
2005 – EPA releases 2,4-D Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED). EPA’s review of human health and environmental data
concludes that the use of 2,4-D does not pose an unacceptable risk to human
health when product instructions are followed.
2007 – EPA determines the existing data do not
support a conclusion that links human cancer to 2,4-D exposure and issues
“Decision Not to Initiate a Special Review” after more than 21 years of
research and agency review.
2008 – PMRA issues final re-evaluation decision on
2,4-D and determines it is safe to use according to label directions.
2012 – EPA rejects NRDC petition: “. . . the
Agency concluded that the science behind our current ecological and worker risk
assessments for 2,4-D is sound and there is no basis to change the
registrations.”
No comments:
Post a Comment