The spray debate

As a leading proponent for labeling GMOs (genetically modified organisms), Pamm Larry cares about what’s in our food. She also cares about what’s on it.

Two recent developments in the realm of chemical sprays—one federal, one state—have drawn her attention. Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved a weed-control agent that includes an active ingredient in the chemical weapon Agent Orange. Corn and soybeans have been genetically engineered to withstand that ingredient, known as 2,4-D. Meanwhile, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) is in the final phase of establishing a pest-control plan that could give state officials latitude to mandate the spraying of any crops, even organics, while bypassing current requirements for public notice and comment.

Larry, the Chico grandma behind Proposition 37 (the 2012 ballot initiative to identify GMOs on food labels, which narrowly failed), sees “interplay” between these policies.

“Not only is this 2,4-D-resistant corn going to be on the market, but our California farm agency has stated that they don’t even have to tell us where it’s sprayed,” Larry said. “That’s how they interact.

“Are they officially connected? No. But I have seen in the last four years a push to tie our hands for local control of agriculture.”

Paul Towers, a Sacramento-based California policy specialist for PANNA (Pesticide Action Network North America), also sees a link.

“Instead of investing in sustainable, ecological methods and really supporting farmers in taking those steps, it looks that both the state and federal governments are continuing to promote and support hazardous chemical controls,” Towers said. “Instead of where all the evidence and where science points to—that we need to look at methods that promote healthy soil, healthy water, that help keep our agricultural system resilient—they continue to prop it up with these harmful inputs.”

PANNA has joined other parties in filing a lawsuit challenging Enlist Duo, Dow AgroSciences’ herbicide that contains 2,4-D. PANNA also expressed opposition to the state spraying plan during the public comment period for the PEIR (Program Environmental Impact Report). The deadline for public comments was Oct. 31. CDFA does not have a legally stipulated timeframe for concluding the process; CDFA spokesman Steve Lyle says the department is “hoping we’ll have the final EIR, including responses to comments, by the end of the year.”

Towers does not foresee substantive revisions: “After spending over $4.5 million to develop this proposed plan, the state was looking to move forward and doesn’t appear to want to include any of our feedback.”

The EPA approved Enlist Duo on Oct. 15 for use in six Midwestern states, with more states under consideration (10 currently, not including California). Opponents filed suit the next day.

Dow touts benefits of its “proprietary blend of glyphosate and new 2,4-D choline, [which] is designed to control the toughest weed species in a long application window, protecting farmers’ crops and helping them maximize their yield.”

Glyphosate is better known as the weed-killer Roundup. Towers says its environmental impacts have been documented, such as “obliteration of food stocks for beneficial insects”—including milkweed, upon which monarch butterflies rely for breeding and survival. Long-term impacts of glyphosate on humans haven’t been scientifically established, but when it comes to 2,4-D, that’s a different story.

“There’s quite a bit more known about 2,4-D impacts,” Towers said. “It’s a veteran chemical of wartime … a reproductive toxicant, among other things. So if the history if glyphosate is any indication, we’re likely to see [an herbicide] that’s known to be harmful to health winding up in our water, air and soil.”

Obviously the EPA disagrees, having deemed Enlist Duo safe, and at least one agricultural scientist (Biofortified.org blogger Steve Savage) says it was a different component of Agent Orange—2,4,5-T versus 2,4-D—that was tainted with dioxin and made the compound so dangerous.

As opposed to herbicides that target invasive plants, California’s new program considers pesticides, which primarily target invasive insects. The real rub comes over discretion—how much power the state will have to dictate measures to local farmers—and disclosure.

Lyle says CDFA’s authority for pest control already has been established by the Legislature. This new plan, serving as the environmental review for spraying programs, will allow the state to move forward with “efficient and proactive implementation.” In other words, quick action.

What appears in the draft may not appear in the final version, he said. Regarding concerns over organic crops: “Generally, our treatment programs do not include commercial producers, including organic producers. However, in rare cases, it may be necessary for the department to require treatment by producers.

“While a great deal of time and resources are dedicated to finding organic approaches, if a suitable approach cannot be identified, a producer would not lose organic status. The organic industry worked with regulators to make sure that provision is in federal law.”

Towers and Larry are not convinced. Noted Towers: “If a farm is forced to control a pest with a chemical method, that farm will stop being organic, and it’s lost three years of intensive work just to become certified [as ‘organic’]. The state can effectively damage or put some organic farmers out of business.”

For Larry, this all fits into a bigger, troubling picture of agriculture. Chemical controls, remote government controls—“It’s just a treadmill we’re creating that’s going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to get off of.”