|
NW Illinois | Yes, the problem started with not enforcing anti trust laws. This made these companies so large they can meet the threshold at the ITC to cover the size regulation that is required to file an antidumping/CVD claim. The claim petitioner must represent 25% of American market for the product they are contesting. Most normal industries, 25% of total US market would have to involve multiple companies petitioning together. But these large ag chem companies can represent 25% of the US market share on their own to file.
We also can't forget these companies have used rule making in the EPA as well. The US EPA approves chemistries for use in the US. The US EPA ultimately gave Corteva a total monopoly on 2,4D beans by approving only 1 in-crop product to be legal to use nationwide. They operated within their scope, but lacked any vision to what outcomes would happen with this path. I still very much believe before Vyconic soybeans make it to regular farm fields, Bayer will try to rerun Corteva's play in forcing a singular, or at least a very narrow herbicide system legal for in crop applications. Roundup/Liberty left the train station long before these companies figured this out. But today there are no (Callisto-Mesotrione) products labeled for use in soybeans for any purpose pre plant or in crop. The Enlist label was also written to be restrictive against other 2,4D tolerant soybeans. The label only allows for in crop use in Enlist soybeans, not any 2,4D tolerant soybean like the language written in lablels for Roundup/ Liberty chemistries.
Edit to add ITC info:
Edited by SimpleJoe 7/2/2026 04:58
 (itc (full).png)
Attachments
----------------
 itc (full).png (32KB - 1 downloads)
| |
|
Phosphate imports
