Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Deere 4440 cab tractor racked up $18,000 at farm retirement auction
Indiana legislature passes bills for ag land purchases, broadband grants
Make spring planting safety plans early to avoid injuries
Michigan soybean grower visits Dubai to showcase U.S. products
Scientists are interested in eclipse effects on crops and livestock
U.S. retail meat demand for pork and beef both decreased in 2023
Iowa one of the few states to see farms increase in 2022 Ag Census
Trade, E15, GREET, tax credits the talk at Commodity Classic
Ohioan travels to Malta as part of US Grains Council trade mission
FFA members learn about Australian culture, agriculture during trip
Timing of Dicamba ruling may cause issues for 2024 planting
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
California to add glyphosate to carcinogen warning label
By TIM ALEXANDER
Illinois Correspondent
 
ST. LOUIS, Mo. — The herbicide glyphosate – the active ingredient in the widely used Roundup brand, manufactured by Monsanto Co. – is a popular weed management tool embraced by many farmers, landscapers, gardeners and homeowners.
 
As of now, it’s also known as a cancer-causing carcinogen in California. The decision by the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to add glyphosate to its list of chemicals known to cause cancer – a list established in the 1980s through Proposition 5 – was announced July 7, after St. Louis-based Monsanto made an unsuccessful attempt to block the listing in trial court.

The action represents a milestone in the decades-old controversy over whether glyphosate should require a warning label. In the Golden State, the product will now require such labeling after July 2018.

California’s action follows a 2015 decision by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to classify glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Monsanto, in a prepared statement, vowed to fight back aggressively to have California’s order rescinded.
 
“Glyphosate is not carcinogenic, and the listing of glyphosate under Prop 65 is unwarranted on the basis of science and the law. California’s sole reason for listing glyphosate under Prop 65 is the fatally flawed classification by IARC, which ignored crucial scientific data that undermines its conclusion,” according to the company.

“OEHHA’s decision to list glyphosate is contrary to its own scientific assessment, which determined that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, as well as the conclusions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the European Chemicals Agency and every regulatory body in the world that has studied glyphosate.

“This is not the final step in the process, and it has no bearing on the merits of the case. We will continue to aggressively challenge this improper decision,” Monsanto added.

California’s proposed labeling of glyphosate products elicited an unprecedented 10,600 comments submitted to OEHHA, according to news sources. Adding to the fray are scores of cancer sufferers lining up to sue Monsanto over Roundup through a number of class actions lawsuits that have developed.

Public perception of glyphosate took a big hit in California in 2016, when genetically modified organisms awareness group Moms Across America found, through a sponsored study, traces of the chemical in “100 percent” of California wines tested. The group tested 10 “major” wines from Napa Valley, Sonoma and Mendocino counties at a laboratory in St. Louis, where all varieties were found to contain trace amounts of glyphosate, according to the study. 
 
The lowest glyphosate level was found in a 2013 Cabernet Sauvignon from a conventional vineyard using farm chemicals, while the lowest reading was detected in a 2013 Syrah from an organic vineyard that had never been sprayed with herbicides.

“Because Roundup/glyphosate is not permitted on organic or biodynamic vineyards, the results are unexpected and can only be explained by the drift of chemical sprays from neighboring vineyards,” the report concluded.

Monsanto did not reply to an interview request from Farm World regarding the glyphosate issue by press time.

The renewed controversy over glyphosate comes at a time when Monsanto is vigorously defending another of its popular farm chemicals, dicamba, which has been temporarily suspended from sale or use in Arkansas and Missouri.

The Missouri Department of Agriculture, however, said last week it would consider lifting the ban on in-crop use of dicamba if a new warning label, complete with revised safeguards, is developed.

The state has received more than 130 dicamba-related complaints of over-the top spray drift damage to non-Roundup crops in recent weeks. 
 
Also last week, Tennessee announced it would join other southern states in developing additional measures to mitigate dicamba spray drift damage. Through Oct. 1, only certified private or licensed applicators may spray dicamba. Spraying records must be maintained, spray hours are restricted and applications to cotton after first bloom are prohibited.

In addition, no older formulations of dicamba products can be used in agricultural settings, under the new restrictions. The full report on Tennessee’s dicamba application restrictions can be accessed through www.tn.gov 
7/19/2017