Harvard Law School’s Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic filed an amicus brief in the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, challenging EPA’s approval of XtendiMax, a newer formulation of dicamba. The Clinic filed a brief on behalf of “farmer support organizations.” More on these organizations later.

Monsanto has genetically engineered soybeans and cotton to be dicamba-resistant. Dicamba, which was developed many years ago, normally is fatal to broadleaf crops. EPA approved a new dicamba mixture sold under the name XtendiMax. Farm groups represented by the Harvard law clinic claimed they warned EPA that if Monsanto’s application was granted, serious harm would befall farmers because of dicamba’s propensity to drift from field to field. Some key takeaways from this brief:

Related:6 changes to how dicamba can be applied in 2018

No context

The weed scientists in the Harvard brief do not provide any context. The Harvard Clinic, with its extensive agricultural background, notes that because RoundUp ready crops became popular, those crops created the rise of “super” weeds. Harvard claims many farmers are plagued by super weeds. Other farmers would say poor management brings the onset of super weeds.

Related:Improper dicamba use leaves soybean farmers with drift cases

The brief claims Monsanto developed dicamba along with XtendiMax to deal with the weed problem. As the label indicates, there can be vapor drift generated by dicamba because it is quite volatile. The Clinic’s brief claims EPA received thousands of comments expressing concern over dicamba’s extreme volatility and drift risk, and still approved the product. Monsanto claims its XtendiMax formulation reduces drift and volatility.

If dicamba had such an enormous impact on soybeans during the 2017 season, the record production numbers seem to undercut Harvard’s Clinic’s argument.

It appears from the brief that Harvard is most concerned about the specialty crop industry and the organic community, which is fearful of drift. It would have been helpful for a few more specifics to be stated in the brief because it says “…tomatoes, watermelon, cantaloupe, vineyards, and pumpkins have been harmed by drifting dicamba.” The amicus brief goes on to claim that if any of these specialty crops have “…any amount of dicamba on them, they must be destroyed.” Other scare stories about bees are also raised in the brief.

Not your usual farm groups

The farmer support groups represented by Harvard Law Clinic include Family Farm Defenders with 3,000 members in Wisconsin; Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, which wants to create healthy and productive food supply for American consumers; Iowa Organic Association, representing 1,000 certified organic farmers in Iowa;  Organic Farmers Association, representing 18,000 U.S. certified organic farmers; and Save Our Crops Coalition, which opposes regulatory actions that cause substantial injury to non-target crops. These groups compose the National Family Farm Coalition, which has the Harvard Law School’s Clinic representing its interests against Monsanto.        

The opinions of the author are not necessarily those of Farm Futures or Farm Progress.