On July 3, Delta Farm Press spoke with Jeff Jacoby, FMC director of public affairs. The interview centered on the causes and aftermath of Delta wheat sprayed with FMC's pesticide Fury. Excerpts of that interview follow (DFP questions in bold).



As time moved on, we decided that the best thing for all parties was for FMC to purchase the affected wheat. We're paying the farmers for the wheat, as well as for its transport and storage.

Have y'all been in contact with any farmers who are less than happy with your offer to buy their tainted crop?


The main reason we went forward with this solution was that we wanted to keep the growers whole. They are, after all, our ultimate customer.

We certainly didn't want to put out any sort of bad connotation regarding the product, either. It's an excellent product.

We have registration pending on cereal grains with EPA which includes wheat, and we didn't want to hurt that process in any way.



Our data indicates that 21 days to 28 days after spraying, Fury residues would be undetectable. Most of these misapplications occurred in April. It's now July, so that makes sense.


No binding offer was made without a price. Our agreement with the regulatory agencies required that FMC notify growers within 48 hours, and that we have purchase agreements to growers within five days. We had to have auditors on the ground coordinating this quickly.

Are you expecting a lawsuit to be filed over this?

There is always the potential for a lawsuit. In this case, we did what we thought was right. I'm not sure what grounds there would be for a lawsuit.




I assume you've conducted an internal investigation. As no one has been disciplined yet, I'm guessing you're just waiting on the states' reports?


But no one has fessed up (to giving the first go-ahead for spraying wheat with Fury)? No reps have said they made a mistake? It isn't necessarily FMC, but either the consultants we've spoken with are wrong or an FMC rep is. Someone is responsible for being the one who gave the original okay to spray this stuff. Everyone can't be telling the truth about not being the originator.

There are a number of different elements involved in the agencies' investigation here. I don't see this as FMC versus consultants, but trying to determine how this happened and how we can prevent it in the future. The agencies will determine who is at fault and make an enforcement decision based on their investigation.

I would not agree that someone is lying here. I don't know what all the consultants have said. That's why the agencies' investigations are going on with all parties involved.

Farmers were in limbo for a while with their wheat crops. Because harvest took place late, their double-crop beans are now late. Is it fair to shackle FMC with potential losses due to late planting? Is that someone else's responsibility or is that just the way the cards fall?

I don't believe that's our responsibility. We feel we have made a fair offer, given the circumstances, for the crop involved.