Farmers have until Wednesday, Oct. 5 to have their voice heard on weed management options, and Texas Farm Bureau (TFB) urges farmers to file their comments here in support of atrazine before tomorrow’s comment deadline.
Atrazine is the second most commonly applied herbicide in the U.S. and is currently under review by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It’s an important crop protection tool used for corn, sorghum and sugarcane. Atrazine is the key ingredient in nearly 100 herbicide mixes farmers use, according to the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA).
“The future of atrazine as a crop protection tool is under threat from EPA,” Brant Wilbourn, TFB associate director of Commodity and Regulatory Activities, said.
The EPA proposal recommends limiting the use of atrazine extensively. The EPA has published a draft assessment based on incomplete science. The assessment ignored multiple high-quality scientific studies that support the continued use of atrazine as a safe and effective herbicide, according to Wilbourn.
If the EPA moves forward with the draft assessment, farmers could spend up to $59 per acre more on alternatives to atrazine, according to a 2012 study by the University of Chicago.
“Without atrazine, farmers would become less efficient at growing a crop and managing weeds,” Wilbourn said.
NCGA is also urging farmers to submit their comments.
“Atrazine is a safe and effective crop management tool, and EPA should base their decisions on sound science,” National Corn Growers Production and Stewardship Action Team Chairman Brent Hostetler said in a news release. “That’s why I’m urging farmers to contact the EPA and make their voices heard.”
The draft assessment, if left unchallenged, would significantly impact continued availability of atrazine by jeopardizing its reregistration.
“In a time of low farm income, this could be another staggering blow to farmers,” Wilbourn said. “Taking away an effective tool that helps farmers grow crops and combat weeds isn’t going to help farmer morale or income. It would just add another problem.”
For more information, see TFB’s action alert.
Science says that for each ‘action’ there is an equal, yet opposite’ reaction. So, what is the reaction concerning Atrazine? It must exist, after all, that would be ‘sound science’. Yes I’m a farm landlord and I’d have to shoulder the cost of a different herbicide. I can live with that but I can’t live with my groundwater contaminated.
Why limit the use of atrazine. You are using junk science at best. Farmers need to have this product
to reduce their already high costs.
Atrazine is a dangerous chemical, it was outlawed in Europe in 1999. It is building up in all drinking
water including ground water. It changes male frogs and fish into females and with continued use will cause
birth defects in humans. It is bad science. It is also outlawed in Minnesota. Run off is dangerous when misused.
The EU’s decision to not allow atrazine use was not based on science, but directed by a groundwater limit for all pesticides of 0.1 ppb regardless of toxicity. The EU recommended a drinking water standard for atrazine 150 times higher than the 0.1ppb water limit and 5 times higher than the US limit of 3 ppb atrazine.
There was one study published regarding atrazine and frogs. The EPA science staff could not replicate the results of the study leading to no reliable determination of cause-effect relationships between atrazine and frogs. This study was thrown out by the Scientific Advisory Panel. EPA also determined there was no compelling reason to pursue any additional tests related to the matter.
Atrazine is not outlawed in Minnesota. Atrazine applicators in Minnesota have to be licensed and follow label requirements such as setbacks when applying near waterways.
I am not in favor of atrazine(agent orange) or Round- up. What ever happened to just hoeing out the weeds by the family? I grew up on a farm and there was no GMOs , no Round- up and no mega farmers. I am in favor of small sustainable farms that grow food crops actually eatable by humans and support the effort of farmers to bring back the family farm which made our country great. We need to get rid of all the sugar trash loaded breakfast cereals. Our population is very over weight and unhealthy so stop promoting more greed and large corporate farms. Support small farm coops, farmer markets, cheaper veggies, healthier fruits that do not stay in refrigeration for months.
GMOs have been around for many years and the technology is used on many farms. The “mega farmers” you refer to are also family farmers. Those farms must grow in order to support more family members coming back to the farm. Small and large farms, both organic and conventional, grow food sustainably and that food is edible for humans. The greedy, large corporate farms you continue to attack aren’t greedy. They eat the food they grow and feed that to their families. They work to raise an affordable, safe, nutritious food supply for others. But, as I said, some of those farms must grow larger in order to sustain more families coming back to the farm.
I support the EPAs decision to band these chemicals that are VERY harmful to our natural ecosystem. There are much better ways to treat our lands then to blanket them with this and other harmful chemicals. Maybe once the EPA removes these bad tools our hard working farmers will band with other farmers like myself that are already working with nature verses against it and stop following the chemical companies out there that tell us blanketing our land with harmful chemicals are the only way to be profitable (maybe the only way for the chemical companies to be profitable)!
Atrazine is one of the many tools in the proverbial toolbox that are available to farmers. While I understand your opinion on chemicals, what works for you may not work for other farmers. There are many different types of agricultural practices a farmer may use, and I feel that Farmers and ranchers should have access to as many tools as possible.