Since introduced in 1958 Atrazine has continued to evolve as a herbicide that provides residual weed control throughout the growing season. Today, more than 45 pre-mix products on the market contain Atrazine. Chuck Foresman, Technical Brand Manager with Syngenta Crop Protection calls Atrazine both the farmer’s and the consumer’s friend.
AUDIO: Chuck Foresman, Syngenta (5:05 MP3)
For more photos from the 2009 Farm Progress Show, click here
Latest: 
Atrazine, 2-chloro-4-(ethylamine)-6-(isopropylamine)-s-triazine, an organic compound consisting of an s-triazine-ring is a widely used herbicide. Its use is controversial due to its effects on nontarget species, such as on amphibians,[1] and because of widespread contamination of waterways and drinking water supplies. Like many commercial products, it is sold under numerous trade names. Its use is banned in the European Union but is still one of the most widely used herbicides in the U.S. with 77 million lb applied in 2003.
(from Wikipedia: Atrazine)
What is there to celebrate?
Chef/Owner A Muse Bouche, LLC private chef services.
As a nutritionist and public health educator, I am concerned that Brownfield is disseminating misinformation about the safety of Atrazine. If you take a look at peer-reviewed scientific literature, you’ll find that Atrazine is an endocrine disruptor, linked to lower sperm counts and higher cancer rates.
Start your search for more up to date information here:
The journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: http://www.ehponline.org/
Because of safety concerns, the EU has BANNED Atrazine.
Here’s an interview with a leading researcher:
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=06-P13-00016&segmentID=1
Wouldn’t it be better to do some rigorous and respectable investigative reporting rather than trying to make advertising look like news?
The team of ag journalists at Brownfield Ag News works very hard to tell the story of agriculture and is fearless in covering all relevant sides of a story.
Atrazine has been an important tool for American farmers who feed the world.
Cyndi, the story of Atrazine as told by Brownfield appears to tell only one side of the story. To validate your point, can you point your readers to a story Brownfield did reporting on the dark side of this powerful, endocrine disrupting hormone?
Where is the other side reported or posted?
Melinda Hemmelgarn, M.S., R.D.
Award-winning independent journalist
Food Sleuth, LLC
I consider myself a high-tech farmer and I use the latest technology to grow more grain with the least amount of impact on the environment. Even though I use the most advance techniques, I still use atrazine because it works. It’s easy to sit in the city and think how terrible farmers and the chemicals they use are. But come to the farm and I’ll show you how my no-till operation is keeping chemicals and sediment out of the surface water. But without atrazine, I wouldn’t be able to do no-till–I’ve got to have a residual herbicide that keeps on killing weeds. Without it I’d obviously have to till the soil more, and I’d also probably would have to use more chemical. This would be more costly to me and to the environment. EPA has reviewed this product inside and out and found no credible studies that prove that atrazine is a health risk. Sure, I have a bias, but so do these folks that are posting in opposition. Only difference is, I am trying to help people understand how we conduct our business, and the other folks are just trying to create a lot of undue fear. Atrazine will continue to be monitored by EPA and as long as they say it is safe I will feel confident using it on my family farm.
Melinda, after reading your columns, I can tell you are definitely not unbiased or interested in showing the other side. And look at other publications, like the recent hatchet job on modern food production by Time Magazine which was an opinion piece sold as hard news. Agriculture battles one-sided news reporting all the time. But one thing is sure. If you make farming even less profitable through unneeded regulation, family farms will not be able to survive. Right now, 90 percent of the corn grown in the US comes from family farms–drive them out of business and then you will certainly see corporate farms. Is that what you want? You may be able to afford to “buy local” and that’s great–I do too when I can, but the other 6.7 billion folks out there may not be so lucky.
Lynn and others: Let’s talk.
As an editorial columnist, as opposed to a news reporter, my writing reflects my professional bias. I am an advocate for sustainable organic farming and I proudly serve on the MOSES (Midwestern Organic and Sustainable Education Services) Board. I came to support organic farming because of the connections between agriculture and public health.
News reporting (as opposed to editorial columns) should deliver all sides. But as mentioned above, I have yet to see any Atrazine safety concerns from Brownfield, but I’m patiently waiting.
I remain concerned about advertisers influencing news reporting in all media.
I also live in the heartland and work closely with farmers to tell their stories. My husband and I created a “Farm Hands” calendar as a tribute to the hands that feed us. Our work has been recognized and awarded by the MO Dept. of Agriculture and MO Farmers Union. You can see the images here:
http://www.columbiafarmersmarket.org/calendar/
I’m most interested in farmers’ reasons for switching to organic farming. They tell me they are concerned about relatives and neighbors with cancer; they want to pretect their children’s health; and protect the water, air and soil they love. One deeply religious farmer told me he didn’t think God would want us to poison everything.
I have the greatest respect for farmers, especially those who are smart enough to question the media and advertising propaganda from the agrichemical industry.
Consumers, farmers and dietitians alike have been duped into believing that we need to poison ourselves in order to feed the world. Successful, smart organic farmers prove otherwise.
Frankly, I found the Time Report on cheap food to be spot on. As a dietitian I see the ravages of cheap sweeteners, fats and meats produced from subsidized corn and soy. I know farmers whose century farms have lost economic value because of the stench of corporate hog farming.
Listen to the voices of organic farmers, researchers and seed dealers at http://www.kopn.org (scroll down for Food Sleuth; click and scan the archive.)
Thomas Jefferson said “eternal vigilance is the true cost of freedom.”
May you eat well and think critically.
Melinda Hemmelgarn, M.S., R.D
Is it possible for people of good will and strong conviction to have a conversation without painting each other into a corner?
For example: With regard to scientific evidence, the jury is always out. Science is a method to gain knowledge. Every study is an invitation to do the next study, and in all of science quite often findings regarding competing hypotheses tend to cancel each other out in an endless process of hypothesis testing.
My work in support of successful local food systems and sustainable agriculture has nothing to do with increasing regulation and putting family farmers out of business. We need many more family farmers who grow real food for local consumption. Am I wrong in my observation that large farms (family-owned or corporate-owned) produce mostly corn and soy for animal feed and for food manufacturing and not for human consumption (even considering manufactured products)?
I firmly believe (and have advocated for) a changes in how America farms and produces food that fully honor and respect generations of farmers who have invested in the land and have done their best to serve as good stewards of the land. If we change how America farms, those farmers need and deserve full compensation for their investments and their devotion to the duty that the USDA and other forces have asked of them.
I also firmly believe that American agriculture’s noble goal of feeding the world may have its limits and unintended consequences. I’m not qualified to comment on this point in any detail but wish to offer it as a point for consideration and discussion.
In any case, I urge all of us to talk to each other with civility and mutual respect. We are not each other’s enemies, even though right now we have trouble figuring out how we are allies.
Melinda,
The story/interview to which you refer was a feature piece from Brownfield’s Farm Progress Show coverage. It did not appear in the “news” category. Brownfield provides news, weather, markets, commentary and other items that our listeners and viewers want and need. Many of our viewers and listeners have and still use atrazine and products that contain atrazine as a tool in growing food, fiber, fuel and feed grains on their farms. The fact that it has been around for 50 years is a cause for celebration for many of those farmers who rely on the product.
If you want news stories we have done about atrazine, simply search our website, just like you would any other website.
I see nothing wrong in celebrating a tool that farmers have used to successfully grow crops to feed the world.
Thank you for your comments. We welcome everyone’s thoughts here.
Melinda,
From one journalist to another, I have a question for you. In your latest post, you state that “News reporting (as opposed to editorial columns) should deliver all sides.” Later you praise the Time article (“Frankly, I found the Time Report on cheap food to be spot on.”), which is one of the worst “journalistic” hatchet jobs I’ve ever seen. The author has admitted that he wrote the article with an agenda, and with absolutely no pretense to being fair and balanced.
So does this mean that one-sided reporting is really okay with you, but only when it espouses a point-of-view that you subscribe to?
It is so easy to flip though an influental grower’s magazine and belive the glossy pages of ads that promise the best yeilds, no weeds ,fungus ,and sustainble soil.
Just remember before you purchase snythetic fertlizers , herbcides or fungicides -if it has a warning or skull and cross bones-its poision -plain and simple.
There are alternatives to synthetics that work effectively ,that will not harm humans animals or enviroment.These products in most cases will improve the surrounding areas, inclunding groundwater, lakes rivers and oceans.
When we hear of products damaging sperm count and causing cancer it’s time to walk away from these products and look for smarter alternatives.
The american farmers are smart business men and woman who are educated, most have families and are spirtual, these folks are concerned with current issues, and are moving towards making a big difference in farming.
It’s agriculture that brings countries to strong economic development,we need to honor our farmers, its because of them we are a stong country, now and in our history.
Ban the (bleep)!
Its banned in the EU!
The makers of atrazine are based in a country where its illegal to use it!
It causes cancer!
It causes hormone disruption!
It has probably been the cause for half of my family dying.
Autism, Alzheimers, early onset puberty, many endocrinological disorders will drop after this stuff is banned!
As far as the smear about jobs being lost if its banned, what about the deaths and peoples health that has been affected by it and the many chemicals like it !
Health is far more important than one companies profit!
Choose life not death
Support a worldwide ban of all harmful pesticides and herbicides!
These are poisons stop being poisoned choose life
**This comment was edited (see bleep in opening sentence.)
-Cyndi Young, Brownfield Ag News