Dicamba usage has become controversial in many US states, including Missouri. People argue that its costs outweigh its benefits. One estimate showed that over a million-acre of soybeans have suffered in places like Missouri due to dicamba usage.
Now, the debate is whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re-register it, especially in places like Missouri, given the damage to crop production has been substantial, or should it be banned? Considering the potential harm it causes to the other crops, it’s time for EPA to ban dicamba usage.
Dicamba is only helpful if used on genetically modified crops, including soybeans and cotton. If the crop is not genetically modified, dicamba might destroy the crop and the weeds.
In addition to the destruction of millions of acres of non-genetically modified soybean crops, many neighboring vineyards and orchards could also be destroyed. This causes additional capital investment because the absence of genetic modification might make the whole effort fruitless.
The other reason for concern is that dicamba doesn’t always stay on the crop where it is being sprayed. On hot days, it might evaporate and travel to the neighboring fields and thus damage the other crops. It was observed that many tomato plants looked sick with curled-up leaves after the exposure to dicamba that came from the nearby crops where it was allegedly applied.
Dicamba has some consequential effects on living organisms too. It is found that it is moderately toxic by ingestion and slightly toxic via inhalation. Recent studies suggest that dicamba should be considered a potential endocrine disruptor for fish at environmentally relevant concentrations. The farmers and residents are likely to inhale dicamba, risking their lives.
Environmentally, it was noted that it might damage the plants due to its absorption from the soils by plant roots. It is also mobile in most soils, and significant leaching is possible. It is likely to be more rapidly degraded in soil with higher microbial activity. At a particular concentration, it caused a transient decrease in the nitrification of the soil.
Given the challenges posed by using dicamba financially, environmentally, and to the well-being of organisms, we should invest our energies in finding a safe, effective, and reliable alternative. Its usage has divided the agricultural community, led to disputes between the farmers, and ruined many other crops.
The EPA even put in place strict restrictions, but it soon became clear that the problem did not go away, and ironically cases related to dicamba increased. There were reports that this herbicide was sold even before the approval of the EPA, which was a crime. Therefore, government agencies must restrict the use of dicamba as a herbicide and protect the agriculture and environment of the state of Missouri.
