STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH

Duane A. Lienemann
UNL Extension Educator

     One of the most discussed topics I have written on is Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s).  I thought I had covered most bases, but I got into an interesting discussion this past week on something that some people call “Agent Orange Corn.”  In pressing for what clarification I found out that this is in reference to the new technology for corn and soybean plants that are resistant to 2,4-D. In researching this I found that Dow AgroSciences’ new biotech corn hybrids are working their way through the regulatory process and in fact the USDA opened the door today to commercial sales of these genetically modified seeds. What is this new technology and why the conflict?  Let’s explore this issue this week.
     Basically these hybrids have been modified to be more resistant to 2,4-D, an herbicide that was introduced in 1948.  This is being cast as a return to the use of Agent Orange and from what I can ascertain – that is completely untrue.  There is a lot of interesting detail behind this, but the moniker for the corn seems to be a classic case of information twisting – twisting in a way that is intentionally misleading.  The reason that the term “Agent Orange Corn” is inaccurate can be discovered in a 1-minute Google search, but this did not prevent a host of environmental and Organic activist organizations, and even “news outlets” from passing along the disinformation, without getting the facts. Does that really surprise anyone?
     I found that a group called “The Center for Food Safety” (CFS) likely coined and then spread the term, “Agent Orange Corn.” I suggest that you study this group -   http://www.activistcash.com/organizations/11-center-for-food-safety. It did not surprise me that this group would be going after this new ag technology, but I wondered why they linked Agent Orange with this new corn technology? Well-- most anyone, like me - from the Vietnam era, knows that this term applied to a defoliant used to kill vegetation primarily in jungles during the Vietnam War. For some background you should know that it was made with two herbicides: 2,4-D (the one that the new corn tolerates), and 2,4,5-T. The 2,4,5-T was unknowingly contaminated with a dioxin, something that was only later recognized as a significant human safety issue.    
     Yes, 2,4-D was part of Agent Orange, but it wasn’t what made Agent Orange a danger back in the 1960s. In fact, for decades, 2,4-D has continued to be one of the most widely used, safest herbicides in the world.  It is registered in 70 countries, including those with very comprehensive and cautious regulators (Canada, the UK, Germany, France, Japan and of course USA). 2,4-D is a component of most consumer products for the control of weeds in lawns. It is used extensively in wheat.  It can already be used on corn up to a certain growth stage.  The key message here--- 2,4-D is NOT Agent Orange. I think this was conveniently left out of the discussion in order to push a particular agenda.
     To be fair, unfortunately there was a very limited understanding of environmental toxicology in America in the early 1960s. The modern environmental movement was just the beginning, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was not established until 1968.  So during the early 1960s, terrible mistakes were made with Agent Orange that are completely unthinkable today.  Since that time the scrutiny of new and old pesticides has become comprehensive.  It would be virtually impossible for an Agent Orange-like mistake could occur today, but that is what CFS and its repeaters are implying.
     Why is there now so much discussion on this issue? The answer to this is that the USDA Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is seeking review and comment from the public on the possibility of deregulating corn and soybean seed that’s resistant to 2,4-D, among other herbicides. APHIS has now released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as a part of its review to determine the deregulation. It will now be available for public review and comment for 45 days. APHIS has four alternatives to consider: keep all of the genetically engineered corn and soybean plants under regulation, deregulate the corn plant only, deregulate the soybean plants only or deregulate both the corn and soybeans. This decision could have far reaching repercussions on farming, so we need to think about this and comment!
     EPA is concurrently conducting risk assessments on the proposed new used of 2,4-D herbicide. Their analysis will include thorough review of any potential human health and environmental risks associated with the application of 2,4-D to the genetically engineered corn and soybean plants. Producers may want to keep on top of this and be sure to make comments accordingly. We must remember that a great many of the pesticides that were in use in the early 1960s have long since been banned or progressively replaced with far, far safer alternatives.  In every round of risk assessment, the EPA and its outside experts have concluded that 2,4-D is safe and has met the EPA’s ever more cautious standards. 
     Farmers in the US, and elsewhere, have been moving increasingly towards the control of weeds with herbicides, rather than with mechanical methods (tillage).  This is actually a good thing from an environmental point of view and for people in our area who know the positives of no-till.  I am also very cognizant of the concern of many scientists, environmentalists and even farmers that 2,4-D can easily drift and can threaten crops that are not resistant and limits those farmers who want to rotate out of the genetically modified crops and in the future it may not be possible to get any seeds other than the genetically modified varieties. However of concern to me is that groups like CFS have generated furor by shouting an intentionally sensational half-truths or lies.  Ironically, this has put them in the position of advocating against a tool farmers need for environmentally sustainable farming.  This new corn, and the soybeans that will follow, are part of what will enable land-use efficiency and low environmental footprint farming – the very thing environmental activists are asking for!

   The preceding information comes from the research and personal observations of the writer which may or may not reflect the views of UNL or UNL Extension. For more further information on these or other topics contact D. A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator for Webster County in Red Cloud, (402) 746-3417 or email to: dlienemann2@unl.edu or go to the website at: http://www.webster.unl.edu/home