Dicamba Part II

AAPCO, 2005

Association of American Pesticide Control Operators,” 2005 Pesticide Drift Enforcement Survey,”  2005.

SUMMARY:

Reports on the results from 2002 and 2003 farmer surveys, including on pesticide drift damage.  FULL TEXT

Benbrook Consulting Services, 2016

Benbrook Consulting Services, Use of Dicamba on Crops as Surveyed by the National Agricultural Statistics Services (NASS), 2016.

SUMMARY:

Table detailing NASS reports of dicamba use (percent of total crop) and application rates.  FULL TEXT

Center for Food Safety, 2012

Center for Food Safety, “Summary of Center for Food Safety’s Science Comments to EPA on Monsanto’s Request to Register Dicamba Herbicide for Use on Monsanto’s
Dicamba-Resistant MON 87708 Soybean,” September 21, 2012.

SUMMARY:

In brief, the introduction of MON 87708 would trigger a huge increase in the use of
dicamba herbicide in American agriculture. This in turn would trigger numerous adverse impacts, including: 1) Rapid evolution of weeds resistant to dicamba and related herbicides; 2) Much increased crop damage from the highly volatile dicamba drifting onto neighbors’ crops; 3) Potential health harms to farmers and the public from greater exposure to dicamba; and 4) Injury to wild plants and animals that depend on them, including threatened and endangered species, from dicamba drift and runoff. FULL TEXT

EPA, 1999a

Environmental Protection Agency, “Dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid); Pesticide Tolerance,” 40 CFR Part 180,  Federal Register, January 6, 1999, Vol. 64, No. 3.

SUMMARY:
Updates tolerances for dicamba. FULL TEXT

EPA, 1999c

Environmental Protection Agency, “Reassessed Group 2 Tolerances by Pesticide,” August 4, 1999.

SUMMARY:

Reassessed tolerances for pesticides following the passage of the FQPA.  FULL TEXT

EPA, 2000

Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Parts 180, 185, and 186, “Consolidation of Certain Food and Feed Additive Tolerance Regulations,” Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 101,  May 24, 2000.

SUMMARY:

The Office of Pesticide Programs is transferring certain of the pesticide food and feed additive regulations that are now in 40 CFR parts 185 and 186 to part 180. These regulations are being consolidate because as a matter of law all of the
pesticide tolerances are now considered to be regulated under FFDCA section 408 as amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act (Public Law 104–17) and they no longer need to be separate. Includes dicamba tolerances. FULL TEXT

EPA, 2016c

Environmental Protection Agency, “Dicamba; Pesticide Tolerances,” Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 180, December 8, 2016.

SUMMARY:

This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of dicamba in or on cotton, gin byproducts; cotton, undelinted seed; soybean, forage; and soybean, hay. Monsanto Company requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Sets the cRfD at 0.04 mg.kg.day.  FULL TEXT

Smith, 2010

Steve Smith, “Deployment of Dicamba-resistant soybeans and what it will mean to canned and frozen food processors and specialty crop growers in the Midwest,” Testimony before Congress, Domestic Policy Subcommittee of Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, September 30, 2010.

SUMMARY:

Steve Smith, the Director of Agriculture at Red Gold, the largest canned tomato processor in the U.S., testifies before Congress on the approval of dicamba-resistant soybeans. FULL TEXT

Smith, 2013

Steve Smith, Comment of the Save Our Crops Coalition, RE: Notice of Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities; Pesticide Products; Receipt of Applications to Register New Uses,  Docket Nos. EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0841-0001, EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0215-0002,
Thursday, January 17, 2013.

SUMMARY:

The Save Our Crops Coalition (SOCC) is a grassroots coalition of farm interests
organized for the specific purpose of preventing injury to non-target crops from
exposure to 2,4-D and dicamba. This comment requests the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) evaluate dicamba residue tolerances for dicamba tolerant crops and the tolerances proposed by SOCC concurrently, and withhold registration of all new uses of dicamba until EPA has established residue tolerances for effected crops.

Smith, 2016a

Steve Smith, “RE: Citizen’s Petition to Classify Pesticides with the Active Ingredient Dicamba as Restricted Use,” Save Our Crops Coalition Petition to the EPA, May 24, 2016.

SUMMARY:

Non-target plant damage associated with herbicide spray drift and volatilization is a  major concern for specialty crop growers and processors. Credible estimates project significant increases in the amount of dicamba that will be applied upon the introduction of dicamba-tolerant crops, and, dicamba, because of its potential to drift and volatilize, has proven to be one of America’s most dangerous herbicides for non-target plant damage. Thus, SOCC respectfully submits the following petition requesting EPA conduct a classification review of products with the active ingredient dicamba to determine whether any or all such products should be classified for restricted use.  FULL TEXT