ruled unanimously against Bayer in the first case that the manufacturer failed to warn consumers and resulted in $289 million (later reduced to $78.5 million) award to Dewayne Johnson, a California school groundskeeper, in November 2018. Subsequently, a federal jury awarded another individual in California $80 million (later reduced to $25 million) in damages in March 2019 after the individual developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using glyphosate for 26 years on his property. Most recently, a jury awarded a couple $2.055 billion in May 2019 (reduced to $86.7 million on July 29) after they used Roundup on their property for decades and later developed non- Hodgkin lymphoma. Te first trial outside of California is scheduled for August 2019 in St. Louis County Courthouse. It’s also important to note these lawsuits aren’t confined to the U.S. as lawsuits have been filed in Canada and Australia to date.
How will this impact sod producers? Te impacts of the current situation around glyphosate (and other pesticides) depend largely on what happens in the near future. One thing is for sure, the scrutiny around pesticide use will not disappear and will most likely become greater in the near future for all facets of agriculture, including sod production. Additionally, Bayer cannot continue to absorb settlements similar to the first three which will directly and indirectly influence production costs (on the pest management side). As previously stated, the first trial outside California is scheduled for August 2019 that may influence the future of this situation. Will glyphosate be available for use in sod production in the future? Will glyphosate be banned in additional geographies that impact your operation? Tese are real questions that cannot be answered at this time.
When you consider the agronomic side, if glyphosate is banned in your area or becomes restricted such that it’s impractical to use, what is the alternative? I think we can agree hand weeding, flame weeding, utilizing steam and other similar alternatives are not viable in most scenarios. While there are multiple selective herbicide options in sod production, nonselective herbicide options are very limited. In short, all glyphosate alternatives are less effective and cost significantly more to apply. Tis will be most impactful when renovating areas and when trying to control perennial weeds. Nonselective herbicide options including diquat (Reward), pelargonic acid (Scythe), and glufosinate (Finale), among others are less effective on many problematic weeds, especially perennials, compared to glyphosate and they are considerably more expensive.
Travis W. Gannon, PhD, is associate professor, Pesticide Fate & Behavior, in the Crop and Soil Science department of the North Carolina State University (NCSU) College of Agriculture and Life Science (CALS). He can be reached by email at:
Travis_gannon@ncsu.edu. Follow him on Twitter @TravisWGannon.
TPI Turf News September/October 2019 51
Conclusions All pesticides including glyphosate that are registered in the U.S. are subject to a rigorous battery of tests that combine toxicity and exposure to ensure risks doesn’t outweigh benefits (i.e. they don’t adversely affect human or environmental health). Specifically, with glyphosate, the International Agency for Research on Cancer stands alone with their assessment, as no other pesticide regulatory authority in the world has concluded glyphosate is a cancer risk to humans. While scrutiny around pesticides and their use is currently heightened, it’s not a new phenomenon and will most likely increase in the future in most parts of the world.
Sod producers remain focused on sustainability and environmental stewardship, which is of utmost importance. As sod producers interact with other sectors of society, what can you do if questioned about pesticide use at your facility or in your community?
• Be professional
• Don’t dismiss or ignore concerned individuals, customers, employees, etc.
• Educate yourself on pesticide related topics
• Communicate factual information, don’t spread misinformation
• Try to understand why individuals have their beliefs, empathize if appropriate
• If necessary, direct them to scientific, non-biased information outlets
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
