Currently viewing the category: "Dicamba"
Bookmark and Share

AGENT ORANGE FLYER CHILDREN OF VIETNAM VETERANS HEALTH ALLIANCE WWW.COVVHA.NET


WWW.COVVHA.NET

 

Herbicide use set to increase as Monsanto joins forces with Bayer, Dow Chemical

Today the Monsanto Company, well known for its pesticide and genetically modified seed technology, consolidated its influence over the agricultural industry with the announcement of a licensing agreement with rival Bayer CropScience.

The deal will give Bayer CropScience a license to use Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant Roundup Ready® soybean technology in the U.S. and Canada. The technology allows for food crops to be doused in the chemical glyphosate, a powerful endocrine disruptor, in order to control weeds.

Bayer will also gain access to a second technology, known as Roundup Ready 2 Xtend, which is currently awaiting regulatory approval from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA).

Roundup Ready 2 Yield will enable crops to survive applications of Roundup and also a second herbicide, dicamba.

Dicamba has been identified as a developmental toxin, capable of interfering with the development of a fetus that may lead to birth defects or developmental malformations.

Read More Via - http://www.examiner.com/article/herbicide-use-set-to-increase-as-monsanto-joins-forces-with-bayer-dow-chemical
APRIL 16, 2013 BY: JUDSON PARKER

Download (DOCX, Unknown)

Bookmark and Share

GENENTIC ROULETTE FULL MOVIE INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE TECHNOLOGY JEFFERY M. SMITH WWW.COVVHA.NET

Awarded Solari Best Film of the Year, 2012, Genetic Roulette has an opportunity to receive the AwareGuide Top Transformational Film, 2012! IRT is offering a free screening of GRM so you can watch and understand why this film certainly deserves the awarded for most transformational film, 2012!

If you have not yet seen this life changing film, Institute for Responsible Technology is offering a free screening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnlTYFKBg18

When the US government ignored repeated warnings by its own scientists and allowed untested genetically modified (GM) crops into our environment and food supply, it was a gamble of unprecedented proportions. The health of all living things and all future generations were put at risk by an infant technology.

After two decades, physicians and scientists have uncovered a grave trend. The same serious health problems found in lab animals, livestock, and pets that have been fed GM foods are now on the rise in the US population. And when people and animals stop eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs), their health improves.

This seminal documentary provides compelling evidence to help explain the deteriorating health of Americans, especially among children, and offers a recipe for protecting ourselves and our future.

More information can be found at: http://geneticroulettemovie.com and http://responsibletechnology.org

Order the DVD at: http://seedsofdeception.com/store/dvdcd?product_id=124

Bookmark and Share

On October 16, 2011, Kelly L. Derricks (TRUTH TELLER) traveled to New York City where she gave a public speech about Agent Orange after being invited by Millions Against Monsanto to participate in the rally event for World Food Day.  Below is the video recording of that speech.

Kelly has battled severe health issues since she was born that continue today. Some of her illnesses, presumed to be associated with the inter-generational effects of Agent Orange, include but are not limited to the following:

• Chronic kidney disease
• Crohn’s disease
• Addison’s disease
• Congenital adrenal hyperplaysia
• Intersticial cystitis.

*Her complete list of illnesses staggers to 30 different things.

Kelly continues to fight for the Children of Vietnam Veterans as well as Vietnam Veterans and their families. In January of 2012 She Co-Founded The Non-Profit Organization (COVVHA) Children Of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance INC

Visit The Main Website At WWW.COVVHA.NET

https://www.youtube.com/user/teppnme?feature=watch

Bookmark and Share

Moms and food activists have been fighting genetically modified foods for years. Now, they have a new ally.

Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) sent a letter to President Obama just before Memorial Day asking for his assistance in delaying approval of a new breed of corn that’s genetically modified to resist heavy applications of the herbicide 2,4-D, one of the two active ingredients in the infamous Vietnam-era defoliant Agent Orange.

The corn and 2,4-D are both being manufactured by Dow Agro Science, which has named its new corn “Enlist,” a name the veterans said in the letter was “a slap at all Vietnam veterans.” Multinational seed company Monsanto also manufactures 2,4-D.

Most of the health problems caused by Agent Orange during the Vietnam War have been attributed to unintended dioxin contamination of the two active ingredients, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Dioxin builds up in the fatty tissue of humans and animals and can cause damage for years after exposure. The government continues to add to the known health conditions related to Agent Orange’s dioxin poisoning, but currently they include diabetes, neuropathy, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, liver dysfunction, numerous cancers, and birth defects in the children of exposed soldiers and Vietnam residents. Studies in recent years have found that 2,4-D is just as likely to be contaminated with dioxin when used alone as it was when used in combination with 2,4,5-T.

Adding to that danger, 2,4-D itself has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, cell damage, hormonal disruption, and reproductive problems, according to the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) earlier this year in an effort to ban the substance permanently. The EPA denied the NRDC’s petition.

“Although there is a lot that science has learned about the effects of dioxin on the human organism, there is still a lot that science has yet to learn,” writes VVA. “Now, Dow and Monsanto wish to release genetically modified corn that has increased resistance to 2,4-D. What will this mean to Vietnam vets, who have already been exposed to this chemical through our military service? To our progeny?”

The group’s letter went on to state that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) conclusion that 2,4-D–resistant corn would have no “significant” impact on the environment was inaccurate and “raises more questions than it answers.” The vets are asking President Obama to push for more research by independent scientists, not those affiliated with Dow Agro Sciences.

“We are not calling for a complete ban of this new product at this time,” the group writes. “We are simply not willing to be lied to or withheld information from again. Vietnam veterans were lied to about our exposure to chemicals which claimed many lives long after our troops left Southeast Asia.”

The VVA isn’t alone in its attempts to get Obama’s attention. Children of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance, another group made up of veterans’ children who were impacted by dioxin poisoning and Agent Orange, is endorsing the California ballot initiative that would require labeling of genetically modified ingredients. That initiative will be voted on in the November 2012 election.

The USDA has closed the public comment period on Dow’s 2,4-D–resistant corn, but the nonprofit Center for Food Safety continues to pressure the EPA to ban 2,4-D altogether. Take a minute to sign the center’s petition and to protect your family from the potential for more toxic pesticide exposure.

Originally Posted On Infinitymuscle.com

http://www.infinitymuscle.com/showthread.php?15187-Vietnam-Vets-Pushing-for-More-Research-on-quot-Agent-Orange-Corn-quot

Bookmark and Share

Listen To the Archived Broadcast Now

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/theorganicview/2012/05/24/children-of-vietnam-veterans-those-exposed-to-agent-orange/scrub/0

The Children of Vietnam Veterans and Those Exposed To Agent Orange & Dioxin is an organization founded by children of Vietnam Veterans dedicated to finding justice, finding answers and offering support for the generational victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin. This is the first group of its kind because it was founded by children of Vietnam Veterans who desperately want our peers to no longer feel alone. They acknowledge the vast amount of people around the globe who have come into contact with Agent Orange such as Americans, Australians, Vietnamese, Koreans, Canadians, Japanese, People of Guam and many more.  Because the generational victims are rarely recognized, COVVHA seeks to collectively bring about change and make the voices of those affected heard.

Kelly L. Derricks is the daughter of deceased Vietnam Veteran Harry C. Mackel, Jr.  Harry died in 1982 at the age of 37 after being exposed to Agent Orange while serving two tours in Vietnam in addition to a tour on Johnston Island. After serving with the United States Air Force, Harry went on to serve the City of Philadelphia as a highly regarded and awarded officer of the Stakeout Unit with the police department. Kelly was only seven years old when her father died.

Kelly has been working as an independent Agent Orange/Dioxin advocate since early 2007.  She has expanded her work under the name “Truth Teller” to legislative areas, environment and agriculture, public speaking, blog authoring, and medical awareness, while tying everything back to encompass her main platform of seeking justice for those exposed.

Kelly’s COVVHA partner Heather A. Bowser,  is also an Agent Orange activist.  Heather was born with multiple birth defects due to her father’s exposure, as a US solider during the Vietnam War, to the chemical defoliant, Agent Orange. Heather was born in 1972, two months premature; she weighed three pounds, four ounces. Heather is missing her right leg below the knee, several of her fingers, her big toe on her left foot, her remaining toes were webbed.

Heather started her activism early in her life along side her parents in the late 1970’s. As a young child, she had a passion to explain what the chemical Agent Orange had done to her family. Like how Mother Sharon, suffered three unexplained miscarriages and her Father had five bypasses at the age of thirty eight and died of a massive heart attack at age fifty.

As former high school teacher, and current mental health licensed professional, Heather uses her skills to reach out and educate others on the devastation that is Agent Orange. Heather has a strong belief in empowering all second and third generations of Agent Orange survivors, to use their voice when possible to speak out and tell others about Agent Orange. Heather’s wish is all Agent Orange survivors will find justice.

In this segment of The Organic View Radio Show on Thursday May 24,2012 at 4p.m. EST, host, June Stoyer talks to Kelly L. Derricks and her COVVHA partner Heather A. Bowser.  Join in and Stay tuned at the link below!

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/theorganicview/2012/05/24/children-of-vietnam-veterans-those-exposed-to-agent-orange/scrub/0

Bookmark and Share

I have been yelling, blogging, and interviewing about this for nearly a year now.  Just last night, March 22, 2012, I spoke about it on a radio show that I was a returning guest on.

ARE YOU LISTENING YET?

Truth Teller

As if the disaster of RoundUp resistant superweeds sweeping our farmland weren’t enough, Monsanto is now preparing to launch an even greater disaster—a new soybean engineered to be resistant to the older, more toxic weedkiller, dicamba. The seed—which Monsanto plans to market in 2014 if approved—will also come stacked with the company’s RoundUp Ready gene, and is designed to be used with Monsanto’s proprietary herbicide “premix” of dicamba and glyphosate.

More dicamba-tolerant crops (corn, cotton, canola) are all waiting in the wings. If this new generation of GE crops is approved, then dicamba use will surge, just as it did with RoundUp. And we all know how well that didn’t work out. To the giant pesticide company, this chemical arms race is all part of the plan.

If you’re thinking that pouring more chemicals onto already devastated farmland sounds a bit like pouring gasoline on a fire, I’d have to agree with you. So do some hefty farm businesses, as it turns out.  Read Full Article

Bookmark and Share

Over-reliance on glyphosate-type herbicides for weed control on U.S. farms has created a dramatic increase in the number of genetically-resistant weeds, according to a team of agricultural researchers, who say the solution lies in an integrated weed management program.

“I’m deeply concerned when I see figures that herbicide use could double in the next decade,” said David Mortensen, professor of weed ecology at Penn State. Since the mid-1990s, agricultural seed companies developed and marketed seeds that were genetically modified to resist herbicides such as Roundup — glyphosate — as a more flexible way to manage weeds, Mortensen said. About 95 percent of the current soybean crop is modified by inserting herbicide-resistant genes into the plants. “We do understand why farmers would use the glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crop package,” Mortensen said. “It is simple and relatively cheap, but we have to think about the longterm consequences.”

The researchers said that increased use of herbicider is leading to more species of weeds that also are resistant to the chemicals. They report their findings in the current issue of BioScience, noting that 21 different weed species have evolved resistance to several glyphosate herbicides, 75 percent of which have been documented since 2005, despite company-sponsored research that the resistance would not occur.

“Several species have developed amazing biochemical ways to resist the effects of the herbicide,” said J. Franklin Egan, doctoral student in ecology, Penn State. “If weed problems are addressed just with herbicides, evolution will win.”  One way the weeds develop resistance is to make an enzyme that is insensitive to the herbicide, but still maintains cellular function, Egan said. Weeds have also developed ways for the plant to move the herbicide away from targeted enzymes.

“For instance, glyphosate-resistant strains of Conyza canadensis — horseweed — sequester glyphosate in leaf tissues that are exposed to an herbicide spray so that the glyphosate can be slowly translocated throughout the plant at nontoxic concentrations,” Egan said. “To the horseweed, this controlled translocation process means the difference between taking many shots of whiskey on an empty stomach versus sipping wine with a meal.”

In response to the increasing number of weeds resistant to current applications, companies are developing new generations of seeds genetically modified to resist multiple herbicides. This continual insertion of more genes into crops is not a sustainable solution to herbicide resistance, according to the researchers. They add that companies are creating a genetic modification treadmill similar to the pesticide treadmill experienced in the mid-20th century, when companies produced increasingly more toxic substances to manage pests resistant to pesticides.

“Specifically, several companies are actively developing crops that can resist glyphosate, 2, 4-D and Dicamba herbicides,” said Mortensen. “Such genetic manipulation makes it possible to use herbicides on these crops that previously would have killed or injured them. What is more troubling is that 2,4-D and Dicamba are older and less environmentally friendly.”

Egan said there are several problems with the treadmill response. First, weeds will eventually evolve combined resistance to Dicamba, 2, 4-D and glyphosate herbicides. Globally, there are already many examples of weeds simultaneously resistant to two or more herbicides.
Read The Full Report Here

Bookmark and Share

Over-reliance on glyphosate-type herbicides for weed control on U.S. farms has created a dramatic increase in the number of genetically-resistant weeds, according to a team of agricultural researchers, who say the solution lies in an integrated weed management program.

“I’m deeply concerned when I see figures that herbicide use could double in the next decade,” said David Mortensen, professor of weed ecology at Penn State. Since the mid-1990s, agricultural seed companies developed and marketed seeds that were genetically modified to resist herbicides such as Roundup — glyphosate — as a more flexible way to manage weeds, Mortensen said. About 95 percent of the current soybean crop is modified by inserting herbicide-resistant genes into the plants. “We do understand why farmers would use the glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crop package,” Mortensen said. “It is simple and relatively cheap, but we have to think about the longterm consequences.”

The researchers said that increased use of herbicider is leading to more species of weeds that also are resistant to the chemicals. They report their findings in the current issue of BioScience, noting that 21 different weed species have evolved resistance to several glyphosate herbicides, 75 percent of which have been documented since 2005, despite company-sponsored research that the resistance would not occur.

“Several species have developed amazing biochemical ways to resist the effects of the herbicide,” said J. Franklin Egan, doctoral student in ecology, Penn State. “If weed problems are addressed just with herbicides, evolution will win.”  One way the weeds develop resistance is to make an enzyme that is insensitive to the herbicide, but still maintains cellular function, Egan said. Weeds have also developed ways for the plant to move the herbicide away from targeted enzymes.

“For instance, glyphosate-resistant strains of Conyza canadensis — horseweed — sequester glyphosate in leaf tissues that are exposed to an herbicide spray so that the glyphosate can be slowly translocated throughout the plant at nontoxic concentrations,” Egan said. “To the horseweed, this controlled translocation process means the difference between taking many shots of whiskey on an empty stomach versus sipping wine with a meal.”

In response to the increasing number of weeds resistant to current applications, companies are developing new generations of seeds genetically modified to resist multiple herbicides. This continual insertion of more genes into crops is not a sustainable solution to herbicide resistance, according to the researchers. They add that companies are creating a genetic modification treadmill similar to the pesticide treadmill experienced in the mid-20th century, when companies produced increasingly more toxic substances to manage pests resistant to pesticides.

“Specifically, several companies are actively developing crops that can resist glyphosate, 2, 4-D and Dicamba herbicides,” said Mortensen. “Such genetic manipulation makes it possible to use herbicides on these crops that previously would have killed or injured them. What is more troubling is that 2,4-D and Dicamba are older and less environmentally friendly.”

Egan said there are several problems with the treadmill response. First, weeds will eventually evolve combined resistance to Dicamba, 2, 4-D and glyphosate herbicides. Globally, there are already many examples of weeds simultaneously resistant to two or more herbicides.
Read The Full Report Here

www.COVVHA.net
Bookmark and Share

During the late-December media lull, the USDA didn’t satisfy itself with green lighting Monsanto’s useless, PR-centric “drought-tolerant” corn. It also prepped the way for approving a product from Monsanto’s rival Dow Agrosciences—one that industrial-scale corn farmers will likely find all-too useful.

Dow has engineered a corn strain that withstands lashings of its herbicide, 2,4-D. The company’s pitch to farmers is simple: Your fields are becoming choked with weeds that have developed resistance to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. As soon as the USDA okays our product, all your problems will be solved. At risk of sounding overly dramatic, the product seems to me to bring mainstream US agriculture to a crossroads. If Dow’s new corn makes it past the USDA and into farm fields, it will mark the beginning of at least another decade of ramped-up chemical-intensive farming of a few chosen crops (corn, soy, cotton), beholden to a handful of large agrichemical firms working in cahoots to sell ever-larger quantities of poisons, environment be damned. If it and other new herbicide-tolerant crops can somehow be stopped, farming in the US heartland can be pushed toward a model based on biodiversity over monocropping, farmer skill in place of brute chemicals, and healthy food instead of industrial commodities.

Dow’s new herbicide-resistant product promises to bring those days back. In its petition to the USDA to approve 2,4-D-resistant corn, the company explicitly pitched it as the answer to farmers’ Roundup trouble. The 2,4-D trait will be “stacked” with Monsanto’s Roundup trait to “generate commercial hybrids with multiple herbicide tolerances,” the petition states. Note that the new product marks a point of collusion, not competition, between industry titans Dow and Monsanto—they plan to license the 2,4-D and Roundup traits to each other to form “stacked” hybrids.
And once they do, farmers can douse their fields with both 2,4-D and Roundup—and 2,4-D will kill whatever weeds Roundup can’t, and leave the crop pristine. Farmers growers will be able to “proactively manage weed populations while avoiding adverse population shifts of troublesome weeds or the development of resistance, particularly glyphosate- [Roundup-] resistance in weeds,” the petition promises.

The USDA, for its part, is buying what Dow is selling. Its Draft Environmental Assessment (PDF) offers no critique of Dow’s claims, and recommends that the product be deregulated. The agency is currently seeking public comment on the matter; the comment period ends Feb. 17. Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told me that when the USDA brings a GMO product to the comment stage after having recommended deregulation, it “almost always” greenlights the product. “The only times I’ve seen the USDA hold off at this stage is when there’s a lot of public pushback,” Gurian-Sherman says. Dow’s new GM corn merits just such a public uproar, it seems to me. A just-released paper from a group of researchers led by Pennsylvania State University crop scientist David A. Mortensen makes a strong case that new herbicide-tolerant crops will lead US agriculture down a path of ever-increasing addiction to agrichemicals. (The abstract is here; I have a PDF of the full paper but can’t upload it because it’s under copyright.)

The authors note that even by Dow and Monsanto’s reckoning, a new stacked 2,4-D/Roundup-resistant product would immediately lead to an increase in herbicide use, because the companies have been advocating an herbicide program that combines current rates of Roundup use with a roughly equal amounts of 2,4-D. That’s good for sales; but not so good for the environment.

And wouldn’t such an herbicide cocktail just lead to weeds that defy both 2,4-D and Roundup? No need to worry about that; Dow and Monsanto claim that it’s extremely unlikely for weeds to survive two different herbicides that attack them simultaneously in entirely different ways.

The authors shred that argument. They retort that resistance to two or more herbicides isn’t a rare occurrence at all—globally, no fewer than 38 weed species across 12 families show resistance to two or more herbicides—”with 44% of these having appeared since 2005.”  They add that in that on millions of acres of farmland in the Midwest and South, many weeds will only need to develop a single resistance pathway, because they’re already resistant to Roundup. That is, when farmers apply 2,4-D at will to weeds that are already resistant to Roundup, they’ll essentially be selecting for weeds that can resist both.

The authors predict that glyphosate (Roundup) use will hold steady at high levels—and use of other herbicides, like 2,4-D, will soar.: From Mortensen, at al, “Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management,” BioScience, Jan. 2012
All in all, the authors conclude, chances are “actually quite high” that Dow’s new product will unleash a new generation of superweeds that resist both Roundup and 2,4-D. If 2,4-D resistance does indeed emerge, farmers will likely respond just as they responded to the advent of Roundup resistance—by applying ever higher doses.

Thus the authors project that 2,4-D use will surge for at least decade before the new seeds reach market. Their main ecological concern with an explosion in 2,4-D use is pesticide drift—they say the compound is quite volatile and prone to be carried in air, where it can do damage to non-target plants like the neighbor’s vegetable farm. “Landscapes dominated by synthetic auxin- [2,4-D]–resistant [crops] may make it challenging to cultivate tomatoes, grapes, potatoes, and other horticultural crops without the threat of yield loss from drift,” they write. They also fear that if you’re a farmer determined not to use a stacked 2,4-D/Roundup seed, you could be forced to if your neighbor’s 2,4-D spray keeps knocking down your corn.

And here’s where we get to the crossroads in our agriculture. If the agrichemical companies manage to ram through the regulatory process a bunch of patches to Roundup Ready farming, then their herbicide-drenched vision will continue dominating huge swaths of prime farmland throughout the country for the forseable future. We don’t have to go that way. It’s time to raise hell.
Read Full Report

www.COVVHA.net
Bookmark and Share

During the late-December media lull, the USDA didn’t satisfy itself with green lighting Monsanto’s useless, PR-centric “drought-tolerant” corn. It also prepped the way for approving a product from Monsanto’s rival Dow Agrosciences—one that industrial-scale corn farmers will likely find all-too useful.

Dow has engineered a corn strain that withstands lashings of its herbicide, 2,4-D. The company’s pitch to farmers is simple: Your fields are becoming choked with weeds that have developed resistance to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. As soon as the USDA okays our product, all your problems will be solved. At risk of sounding overly dramatic, the product seems to me to bring mainstream US agriculture to a crossroads. If Dow’s new corn makes it past the USDA and into farm fields, it will mark the beginning of at least another decade of ramped-up chemical-intensive farming of a few chosen crops (corn, soy, cotton), beholden to a handful of large agrichemical firms working in cahoots to sell ever-larger quantities of poisons, environment be damned. If it and other new herbicide-tolerant crops can somehow be stopped, farming in the US heartland can be pushed toward a model based on biodiversity over monocropping, farmer skill in place of brute chemicals, and healthy food instead of industrial commodities.

Dow’s new herbicide-resistant product promises to bring those days back. In its petition to the USDA to approve 2,4-D-resistant corn, the company explicitly pitched it as the answer to farmers’ Roundup trouble. The 2,4-D trait will be “stacked” with Monsanto’s Roundup trait to “generate commercial hybrids with multiple herbicide tolerances,” the petition states. Note that the new product marks a point of collusion, not competition, between industry titans Dow and Monsanto—they plan to license the 2,4-D and Roundup traits to each other to form “stacked” hybrids.
And once they do, farmers can douse their fields with both 2,4-D and Roundup—and 2,4-D will kill whatever weeds Roundup can’t, and leave the crop pristine. Farmers growers will be able to “proactively manage weed populations while avoiding adverse population shifts of troublesome weeds or the development of resistance, particularly glyphosate- [Roundup-] resistance in weeds,” the petition promises.

The USDA, for its part, is buying what Dow is selling. Its Draft Environmental Assessment (PDF) offers no critique of Dow’s claims, and recommends that the product be deregulated. The agency is currently seeking public comment on the matter; the comment period ends Feb. 17. Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told me that when the USDA brings a GMO product to the comment stage after having recommended deregulation, it “almost always” greenlights the product. “The only times I’ve seen the USDA hold off at this stage is when there’s a lot of public pushback,” Gurian-Sherman says. Dow’s new GM corn merits just such a public uproar, it seems to me. A just-released paper from a group of researchers led by Pennsylvania State University crop scientist David A. Mortensen makes a strong case that new herbicide-tolerant crops will lead US agriculture down a path of ever-increasing addiction to agrichemicals. (The abstract is here; I have a PDF of the full paper but can’t upload it because it’s under copyright.)

The authors note that even by Dow and Monsanto’s reckoning, a new stacked 2,4-D/Roundup-resistant product would immediately lead to an increase in herbicide use, because the companies have been advocating an herbicide program that combines current rates of Roundup use with a roughly equal amounts of 2,4-D. That’s good for sales; but not so good for the environment.

And wouldn’t such an herbicide cocktail just lead to weeds that defy both 2,4-D and Roundup? No need to worry about that; Dow and Monsanto claim that it’s extremely unlikely for weeds to survive two different herbicides that attack them simultaneously in entirely different ways.

The authors shred that argument. They retort that resistance to two or more herbicides isn’t a rare occurrence at all—globally, no fewer than 38 weed species across 12 families show resistance to two or more herbicides—”with 44% of these having appeared since 2005.”  They add that in that on millions of acres of farmland in the Midwest and South, many weeds will only need to develop a single resistance pathway, because they’re already resistant to Roundup. That is, when farmers apply 2,4-D at will to weeds that are already resistant to Roundup, they’ll essentially be selecting for weeds that can resist both.

The authors predict that glyphosate (Roundup) use will hold steady at high levels—and use of other herbicides, like 2,4-D, will soar.: From Mortensen, at al, “Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management,” BioScience, Jan. 2012
All in all, the authors conclude, chances are “actually quite high” that Dow’s new product will unleash a new generation of superweeds that resist both Roundup and 2,4-D. If 2,4-D resistance does indeed emerge, farmers will likely respond just as they responded to the advent of Roundup resistance—by applying ever higher doses.

Thus the authors project that 2,4-D use will surge for at least decade before the new seeds reach market. Their main ecological concern with an explosion in 2,4-D use is pesticide drift—they say the compound is quite volatile and prone to be carried in air, where it can do damage to non-target plants like the neighbor’s vegetable farm. “Landscapes dominated by synthetic auxin- [2,4-D]–resistant [crops] may make it challenging to cultivate tomatoes, grapes, potatoes, and other horticultural crops without the threat of yield loss from drift,” they write. They also fear that if you’re a farmer determined not to use a stacked 2,4-D/Roundup seed, you could be forced to if your neighbor’s 2,4-D spray keeps knocking down your corn.

And here’s where we get to the crossroads in our agriculture. If the agrichemical companies manage to ram through the regulatory process a bunch of patches to Roundup Ready farming, then their herbicide-drenched vision will continue dominating huge swaths of prime farmland throughout the country for the forseable future. We don’t have to go that way. It’s time to raise hell.
Read Full Report

Bookmark and Share
We have all been hearing for the last couple weeks about this absurdity.  However one of the things that I have been continually yelling about is a lesser known herbicide called DICAMBA.  The problem is that Dicamba will not be lesser known for much longer. 
 It is as clear as day when looking at the chemical makeup of 2,4-D (Half of the total compound of AGENT ORANGE) that DICAMBA is actually a more destructive herbicide.

Please become aware of this herbicide - DICAMBA DICAMBA DICAMBA.  While Monsanto deals with  their well known herbicides like 2,4-D and Glyphosate, they are counting on the general public remaining unaware of their next deadly sin DICAMBA.

Truth Teller

The USDA made two momentous announcements on GMO crops, neither of which got much media scrutiny. It deregulated Monsanto’s so-called drought-tolerant corn, and it prepared to deregulate Dow’s corn engineered to withstand the herbicides 2,4-D and dicamba.

The drought-tolerant corn decision, which came down on Dec. 21, was momentous occasion, because it marked the first deregulation of a GMO crop with a “complex” trait. What I mean by that is, the other GMOs on the market have simple, one-gene traits: a gene that confers resistance to a particular herbicide, like Monsanto’s Roundup Ready seed or a gene that expresses the toxic-to-bugs properties of the bacteria Bt, as in Monsanto’s Bt seed. But a plant’s use of water is a complex process involving several genes; there’s no single “drought tolerant” gene. Generating such traits in plants that succeed in field conditions has been considerably more tricky for the agrichemical giants than than simple traits.

The drought-tolerant corn the USDA signed off on in December is the first approved crop of that kind. The trouble is, it doesn’t work very well. The USDA acknowledged as much in its environmental its Nov. 11 Final Environmental Assessment of the crop. It makes clear that the product’s “drought tolerance” extends only to “moderate” drought conditions, and it has the same “minimum water requirements” as conventional corn.

And then it drops this bombshell, citing Monsanto’s own field tests: “It is prudent to acknowledge that the reduced yield-loss phenotype of MON 87360 does not exceed the natural variation observed in regionally-adapted varieties of conventional corn (representing different genetic backgrounds).” Translation: In areas of the US corn belt where drought is a factor, conventional breeders have already developed varieties that do just as well under moderate-drought conditions as Monsanto’s genetically altered product.

It added that these non-GMO varieties are “readily available,” and will remain so once Monsanto’s product is sold commercially. There are two things to say about this. The first is, it means that Monsanto’s novel product offers precisely nothing to farmers that isn’t already available to them—and without the need to pay a hefty GMO licensing fee. The second thing that comes to mind is that Monsanto’s dominance of the corn seed and trait market could mean that those “readily available” conventional varieties might not be readily available for very long once the company starts distributing its new seed. Already, there are areas in the corn belt in which farmers say they can’t buy non-Bt corn. Could Monsanto do the same thing with its drought-tolerant corn?
Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Food and Environment Program who has a paper forthcoming on the industry’s vexed efforts to make breakthroughs in drought tolerance, told me that it was “very possible” that Monsanto could use its market muscle to push big commodity farmers in the corn belt to use the company’s unnecessary product. “They could even use it as a loss leader, sell it at cost or even a loss, and then reap the PR benefits of a having a drought-tolerant product used on millions of acres.”

So even though Monsanto’s first complex-trait product is essentially a failure, it could still manage to ram it down farmers throats, and then be able to boast that it has its first super-seed out in the field. Meanwhile, the fact remains that the agrichemical industry still hasn’t produced a complex-trait product that works any better than conventional breeding.

And it’s not clear that the industry will ever succeed on this front, except in PR terms. Take another complex trait the industry has been promising for years: making plants more efficient as [BY?] using nitrogen fertilizer. Stanford biologist Peter Vitousek put it to me like this in an interview for an article two years ago: “Plants have been evolving for millions of years. I doubt that [GMO] plant breeders will be able to hit upon anything for nutrient utilization that nature already hasn’t tried.” In 2009, Gurian-Sherman published a paper showing that the industry had yet to generate a successful nitrogen-efficient crop after a decade of research, even as traditional plant breeders had continued to make gains. More than two years later, Guriab-Sherman’s analysis still holds. Read More…

www.COVVHA.net
Bookmark and Share
We have all been hearing for the last couple weeks about this absurdity.  However one of the things that I have been continually yelling about is a lesser known herbicide called DICAMBA.  The problem is that Dicamba will not be lesser known for much longer. 
 It is as clear as day when looking at the chemical makeup of 2,4-D (Half of the total compound of AGENT ORANGE) that DICAMBA is actually a more destructive herbicide.

Please become aware of this herbicide - DICAMBA DICAMBA DICAMBA.  While Monsanto deals with  their well known herbicides like 2,4-D and Glyphosate, they are counting on the general public remaining unaware of their next deadly sin DICAMBA.

Truth Teller

The USDA made two momentous announcements on GMO crops, neither of which got much media scrutiny. It deregulated Monsanto’s so-called drought-tolerant corn, and it prepared to deregulate Dow’s corn engineered to withstand the herbicides 2,4-D and dicamba.

The drought-tolerant corn decision, which came down on Dec. 21, was momentous occasion, because it marked the first deregulation of a GMO crop with a “complex” trait. What I mean by that is, the other GMOs on the market have simple, one-gene traits: a gene that confers resistance to a particular herbicide, like Monsanto’s Roundup Ready seed or a gene that expresses the toxic-to-bugs properties of the bacteria Bt, as in Monsanto’s Bt seed. But a plant’s use of water is a complex process involving several genes; there’s no single “drought tolerant” gene. Generating such traits in plants that succeed in field conditions has been considerably more tricky for the agrichemical giants than than simple traits.

The drought-tolerant corn the USDA signed off on in December is the first approved crop of that kind. The trouble is, it doesn’t work very well. The USDA acknowledged as much in its environmental its Nov. 11 Final Environmental Assessment of the crop. It makes clear that the product’s “drought tolerance” extends only to “moderate” drought conditions, and it has the same “minimum water requirements” as conventional corn.

And then it drops this bombshell, citing Monsanto’s own field tests: “It is prudent to acknowledge that the reduced yield-loss phenotype of MON 87360 does not exceed the natural variation observed in regionally-adapted varieties of conventional corn (representing different genetic backgrounds).” Translation: In areas of the US corn belt where drought is a factor, conventional breeders have already developed varieties that do just as well under moderate-drought conditions as Monsanto’s genetically altered product.

It added that these non-GMO varieties are “readily available,” and will remain so once Monsanto’s product is sold commercially. There are two things to say about this. The first is, it means that Monsanto’s novel product offers precisely nothing to farmers that isn’t already available to them—and without the need to pay a hefty GMO licensing fee. The second thing that comes to mind is that Monsanto’s dominance of the corn seed and trait market could mean that those “readily available” conventional varieties might not be readily available for very long once the company starts distributing its new seed. Already, there are areas in the corn belt in which farmers say they can’t buy non-Bt corn. Could Monsanto do the same thing with its drought-tolerant corn?
Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Food and Environment Program who has a paper forthcoming on the industry’s vexed efforts to make breakthroughs in drought tolerance, told me that it was “very possible” that Monsanto could use its market muscle to push big commodity farmers in the corn belt to use the company’s unnecessary product. “They could even use it as a loss leader, sell it at cost or even a loss, and then reap the PR benefits of a having a drought-tolerant product used on millions of acres.”

So even though Monsanto’s first complex-trait product is essentially a failure, it could still manage to ram it down farmers throats, and then be able to boast that it has its first super-seed out in the field. Meanwhile, the fact remains that the agrichemical industry still hasn’t produced a complex-trait product that works any better than conventional breeding.

And it’s not clear that the industry will ever succeed on this front, except in PR terms. Take another complex trait the industry has been promising for years: making plants more efficient as [BY?] using nitrogen fertilizer. Stanford biologist Peter Vitousek put it to me like this in an interview for an article two years ago: “Plants have been evolving for millions of years. I doubt that [GMO] plant breeders will be able to hit upon anything for nutrient utilization that nature already hasn’t tried.” In 2009, Gurian-Sherman published a paper showing that the industry had yet to generate a successful nitrogen-efficient crop after a decade of research, even as traditional plant breeders had continued to make gains. More than two years later, Guriab-Sherman’s analysis still holds. Read More…

Bookmark and Share
The Chemical make-up of Dicamba is clearly shown to be stronger then it’s counterpart 2,4-D
(Half Of The Chemical Compound of Agent Orange)
WATCH OUT!!!!
Truth Teller

Steckel says resistance to glyphosate is developing at the rate of at least one new weed per year. Weeds with documented resistance to glyphosate include horseweed, pigweed, giant ragweed, common ragweed, common water hemp, Italian ryegrass, goosegrass and johnsongrass. While the list is a cause for concern, glyphosate-resistant Palmer pigweed is still the primary driver in weed control.

“Many times, it is the only weed in the field. It will determine the success or failure of your weed control program, and perhaps determine whether or not you harvest your crop. Going with a ‘back to the future’ approach with hooded sprayers and directed applications is the only way to manage resistant weeds long-term.” Steckel said new Willmar hoods “are terrific tools, particularly for managing Palmer pigweed. They are designed for a contact herbicide like Gramoxone, or Valor, MSMA. We really need to employ them, whether you’re in a Roundup Ready system, a LibertyLink system or a conventional system. We need a different mode of action or two underneath that hood to help us manage resistance.”

For glyphosate-based systems, Steckel recommends using a residual like Reflex early, “then plant clean, apply residuals and try to overlap glyphosate and Dual and use the hooded sprayer.” He recommends a similar residual approach for Ignite-based systems, except that Ignite is sprayed over-the-top.

Steckel noted that Ignite-based systems are growing in popularity across the Southeast and Mid-South. In fact, these systems were used on 57 percent of cotton acres in Tennessee and 52 percent of cotton acres in North Carolina. “Where we end up I don’t know. Ideally, I’d like to see a 50-50 split where you could rotate back and forth and help prevent resistance developing to Ignite.”

With the increasing use of Ignite-based systems, it’s more important than ever to flag fields to insure that the correct herbicide is used, Steckel said. “The University of Arkansas is encouraging this program. A red flag on the border of a field is means the cotton is conventional, a green flag is LibertyLink cotton and a white flag is Roundup Ready cotton.

“The Ignite- and Roundup Ready-based systems have to be managed differently, but the biggest factor is to get good coverage,” Steckel said. “Use flat fan nozzles, and go back to 15 gallons per acre. We have to, especially on borderline weeds that are too big for Ignite.”

Steckel is also worried about the development of glyphosate-resistant goosegrass in the Mid-South. “The bottom line is that the herbicides we used 10 years to 15 years ago, like Fusilade and Select, could come back into play. But those products did not control goosegrass when it was 3-tillers or larger. Guess what? It still doesn’t control goosegrass larger than three tillers. Timeliness, just like it is on Palmer pigweed, is going to be essential.”

There are no new technologies on the horizon that can do what the Roundup Ready system used to do, Steckel said. “Nothing will be able to provide the efficacy on large Palmer like Roundup Ready did. In the next 10 years to 15 years, we’re going to have to manage it with the older herbicides, the preplant and pre-emergence herbicides and the new herbicide-technology traits.”

While the new traits, such as dicamba- or 2,4-D-resistance, won’t be a silver bullet for control of resistant weeds, “they will be very much needed,” Steckel said. “We will be able to do a better job of managing pigweed than we can today. We can kill that 5- to 8-inch pigweed very effectively with 2,4-D and dicamba. Hopefully, they will come in the nick of time. We’re relying a lot on Ignite and we’re relying a lot on these pre- herbicides, and I think we’re going to start to see resistance.” Read More…

www.COVVHA.net
© 2013 ‎(COVVHA) Children Of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance INC
Print Our Flyer!!! Subscribe To COVVHA  Join Us On Google+