Why developing new herbicides is so hard

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

Ever wonder why weed scientists are so aggressive about protecting herbicide chemistry?  Growers are constantly being told to protect the chemistry available today because who knows when, or if, they will get anymore. But why is that? In short, any new chemistry would have to be ‘the perfect herbicide.’

. . . let’s say we want to try to bring new chemistry to the farm today and make that perfect herbicide. What do we need to do?

To get our new herbicide chemistry venture started, we need at least $250 million. . . [an investor] will have to wait 10-15 years to begin getting any of his investment back and then only has 14 years before others can start selling the same product. . .

Environmentally friendly is a requirement for our new product. . .

Acute or chronic toxicity issues are absolutely forbidden. Our product must be harmless to all humans who could come in contact with it directly or indirectly.

Persistence of the herbicide also must be understood early in development. . .

But wait, there’s one more hurdle and it can come out of the blue at any time: We better be prepared for various groups to challenge our label in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of California. . .

“Hmmm…… maybe those weed science guys are on to something.  Seems pretty smart to protect the herbicide chemistry we have today by making wise decisions, implementing diversified herbicide modes of action into an integrated program that uses cover crops, tillage and/or hand weeding.

Read full, original post: Perfect herbicide: Don’t expect help from new chemistry and this is why

Outbreak Daily Digest
Biotech Facts & Fallacies
Talking Biotech
Genetics Unzipped
Video: Test everyone – Slovakia goes its own way to control COVID

Video: Test everyone – Slovakia goes its own way to control COVID

As Europe sees record coronavirus cases and deaths, Slovakia is testing its entire adult population. WSJ's Drew Hinshaw explains how ...
mag insects image superjumbo v

Disaster interrupted: Which farming system better preserves insect populations: Organic or conventional?

A three-year run of fragmentary Armageddon-like studies had primed the journalism pumps and settled the media framing about the future ...
dead bee desolate city

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

The media call it the “Insect Apocalypse”. In the past three years, the phrase has become an accepted truth of ...
globalmethanebudget globalcarbonproject cropped x

Infographic: Cows cause climate change? Agriculture scientist says ‘belching bovines’ get too much blame

A recent interview by Caroline Stocks, a UK journalist who writes about food, agriculture and the environment, of air quality ...
organic hillside sweet corn x

Organic v conventional using GMOs: Which is the more sustainable farming?

Many consumers spend more for organic food to avoid genetically modified products in part because they believe that “industrial agriculture” ...
benjamin franklin x

Are most GMO safety studies funded by industry?

The assertion that biotech companies do the research and the government just signs off on it is false ...

Environmental Working Group: EWG challenges safety of GMOs, food pesticide residues

Known by some as the "Environmental Worrying Group," EWG lobbies for tighter GMO legislation and famously puts out annual "dirty dozen" list of fruits and ...
m hansen

Michael Hansen: Architect of Consumers Union ongoing anti-GMO campaign

Michael K. Hansen (born 1956) is thought by critics to be the prime mover behind the ongoing campaign against agricultural biotechnology at Consumer Reports. He is an ...
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend