NAAA got to the “plane” truth of the matter after The Wall Street Journal mistakenly published a photo of an ag plane spraying a field in an article about the EPA’s decision to extend its approval of the Bayer AG dicamba herbicide XtendiMax with some new restrictions.

The problem with associating aerial spraying with dicamba applications, which were linked to a rash of drift complaints across the country this year? The new dicamba formulations for dicamba-tolerant soybeans and cotton are not labeled for aerial applications. Therefore, none of the drift incidents involving the new formulations of dicamba applied to dicamba-tolerant crops involved aerial applications. The WSJ’s aerial application photo suggested otherwise, however.

NAAA Executive Director Andrew Moore made those points in an email to the Wall Street Journal about the misleading photo, and added, “Had aircraft been used, the speed in which they treat a crop is multiple times faster than other forms of application, thereby allowing aircraft to take advantage of the brief windows of opportunity to treat in appropriate weather conditions, avoiding the windy conditions described in the article.” The next day NAAA received an email from the Journal’s news editor for newsroom standards acknowledging a correction about the ag plane photo appeared on page A2 of the WSJ’s Nov. 7 editions. The correction stated: “XtendiMax, a version of the herbicide dicamba made by Bayer AG, isn’t applied to crops aerially. In some editions Thursday, a U.S. News article about the herbicide incorrectly was accompanied by a photo of a crop duster spraying a field.”