OMAHA (North Dakota Monitor) — Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers and Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird joined two farmers and state agricultural officials Wednesday in drawing a line in fertile soil.
The two ag-led states were among 11 states urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to stop a patchwork of state labeling efforts on farm chemicals.
Attorneys general in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, and South Dakota asked the EPA to issue a new rule on labeling.
Hilgers and Bird said their states typically nudge the federal government the other direction, against national regulation. This time, however, ag states are more worried about regulations being driven by California.
California’s labeling decision
The Golden State has pressed to label the weed-killer glyphosate as a carcinogen, meaning a chemical that can cause cancer. Glyphosate is more commonly known by its trade name, Roundup, a weed killer.
California officials have said the move is based on science. They and others point to a 2015 decision by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer labeling glyphosate as a probable trigger of cancer in humans.
States that object to labeling the chemical a carcinogen, including Nebraska and Iowa, say that’s wrong. They point to older, longer EPA studies deeming glyphosate safe in agricultural uses as long as people follow the directions for use.
“We know labeling, it’s a nationwide marketplace for this particular product,” Hilgers said. “The EPA has been given the authority to actually help regulate the labeling in this context.”
The goal of the ag-state effort, he said, is to avoid the costs of complying with competing labeling requirements from multiple states, the logistical challenges involved and potential litigation.
Fears of glyphosate
Some academic studies have found that glyphosate has contributed to cancer when people are exposed to too much or apply it incorrectly.
Bayer, which bought Roundup from Monsanto, removed glyphosate from the Roundup spray people use in their homes in 2023 after lawsuits were filed. Some farmers have said they don’t want to lose the ability to use the product in their fields.
A University of Washington review of research on the chemical has found that its risks are real, and another study cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found traces of the chemical in the urine of 80% of the 2,310 people surveyed nationally.
Four Nebraska farmers sued Monsanto in 2016 alleging that its use was to blame for their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. They argued the product was mislabeled and should have contained warnings.
Farmers need reliable weed control
Glyphosate defenders say it controls weeds more cheaply and effectively than other options and point to EPA findings that the chemical can be safely used by following directions.
Bird, who said she still lives on family-owned farm ground, said ag faces enough challenges without worrying about whether one state can ban something that farmers in other states rely on to control weeds.
She said her family and Iowa farmers have been using glyphosate for decades without trouble. Bird said if they need to resort to different weed-control options it will add to the costs of farming and food.
“It kind of tells you something when, in order to keep on farming, farmers need a lawyer to stand up for them against regulations, and I’m very glad to do that,” she said.
Asked why companies manufacturing glyphosate and other farm chemicals couldn’t just print California’s label and sell the product elsewhere Hilgers said laws in Nebraska and other states prevent deceptive and inaccurate labeling.
Bird and Hilgers questioned what would happen if other states want to attach product labels they disagree with. Bird said it’s an issue of why one state should dictate to others.
“There’s no way that a state like California should tell a farmer in Nebraska or Iowa how to farm,” she said. “It’s not their business, and it’s not their place as far as the law goes.”
Hilgers said farmers might also have to worry about the costs of potential lawsuits if they apply a product labeled as a carcinogen, whether that label is based on science or not.
Ag perspectives
Sherry Vinton, the director of the Nebraska Department of Agriculture, said farmers can’t control the prices that crops and livestock fetch at market, but they try to control input costs.
“We don’t need to be price-gouged on our input costs from unnecessary government regulation,” she said of the California labeling decision, which a court has since halted through an injunction.
Kevin Ross, a farmer from Underwood, Iowa, and a past president of the National Corn Growers Association, said farmers need the EPA to set a national rule for all to follow.
He said glyphosate is one of the most cost-effective tools he has to control weeds. Other options require more expensive chemicals that don’t perform as well and might be more harmful, Ross said.
Competition is real
Mark McHargue, president of the Nebraska Farm Bureau and a Merrick County corn and soybean farmer, said there is a limit to the number of tools farmers can use to grow food.
He said American farmers often compete with growers from Argentina and other countries that use glyphosate with fewer restrictions.
McHargue said farmers aren’t asking to put people at risk. They’re asking to have consistent rules, grounded in science, that are set at the national level.
“There is a growing trend as new herbicides, chemicals and livestock production methods are developed and farmers start using those tools,” he said. “A movement of certain people, maybe that’s not scientifically based, saying, you know, ‘I don’t like that.’”
Hilgers and Bird said it is their job to protect farmers and ranchers from that uncertainty. Hilgers said the ag states want to encourage the EPA to do the right thing and exercise its congressionally approved authority.
If it doesn’t, Hilgers said, states are prepared to pursue other options, from trying to address the issue in the farm bill to filing lawsuits. He said glyphosate is that important.
“There is no substitute for it,” Hilgers said. “We don’t have a substitute that is as effective and as low cost that exists.”
By: Aaron Sanderford
Source link : http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=FexRss&aid=&tid=66b624e951464681b9c97874a6d5c4ad&url=https%3A%2F%2Fkfgo.com%2F2024%2F08%2F09%2F1032870%2F&c=9254393721788179508&mkt=en-us
Author :
Publish date : 2024-08-08 23:43:00
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.