Laserfiche WebLink
<br />00048l <br /> <br />Research Service estimates that 80% of the half <br />billion pounds of agricultural herbicides are used on <br />corn and soybean crops alone.4 Corn crops are <br />normally rotated with soybeans all across the Mid- <br />west. Farmers use Atrazine in cornfields to control <br />grass seedlings and many broadleafweeds, but the . <br />subsequent crop of soybeans is adversely affected by <br />residual Atrazine and thereby dictates the level at <br />which it can be applied. Clearly, if a variety of <br />soybeans were engineered to tolerate high soil con- <br />centrations of Atrazine, the herbicide could be used at <br />higher levels than those currently employed. James <br />Kent, a seed industry consultant, told The Farm <br />Journal that such a development would increase the <br />use'of Atrazine by a factor of three." A paper entitled <br />"The Influence of Biotechnology on the Agrichemical <br />Business" bluntly states that it is more likely that <br />"the farmer will be able to use more herbicide, more <br />often, on more crops." <br />Most researchers and industry representatives <br />continue to circumvent the issue by adhering to the <br />point that HR crops will reduce herbicide use. They <br />suggest that farmers will use the newer, more exp.en- <br />sive but "environmentally benign" herbicides. Yet <br />there is some question as to whether or not these <br />. chemicals are less toxic, or if they do have a shorter <br />residual life in the soil. Ironically, most research in <br />herbicide-resistance is on older, provenherbieides <br />like Atrazine and 2,4-D.7 These herbicides are highly <br />toxic, used in large quantities, persist long in the soil <br />and contaminate surface and groundwater. Atiazine <br />has been declared a restricted-use herbicide in Iowa <br />because of its presence in groundwater. More brazen <br />industrial researchers tell it like it is: the introduc- <br />tion of HR into crop plants may promise "new and <br />patentable products and significantly extend the <br />'usefullife of our more valuable herbicides.". <br />. As transnational corporations take over small . <br />biotech companies and their patents, buyout seed. <br />companies and make multi-million dollar research <br />contracts with major universities, a large proportion <br />of inputs for agriculture are consolidated into the <br />hands of a few multinational conglomerates. As <br />reported in Dollars and Sense, of the top f"Ifteen <br />biotech companies, five are multi-nationals; DuPont <br />(U.S.), Monsanto (US), Imperial Chemical Industries <br />(U.K.), Ciba-Geigy (Switzerland) and Sandoz (Swit- <br />zerland). The remaining ten either have research . <br />contracts or financial agreements with or are inde- <br />pendent subsidiaries of the transnationals. The total <br />annual biotech research and development budget of <br />these flfteen corporations amounts to $172.2 million.9 <br />Jack Doyle, in his book Altered Harvest, illuminates <br />the political clout gained by companies like Mon- <br />santo, Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz. The political and <br />monetary strength that envelopes the conglomerates <br />may result in their ability to resist many regnlatory <br /> <br />, <br />.3 <br />.-" -~ <br />t <br /> <br />? <br />, <br /> <br />l <br />i <br />! <br />, <br />! <br />I <br />, <br />l <br />, <br />? <br />3t <br />~ <br />~ <br />'" <br />r: <br />i <br />! <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />r <br /> <br />~: <br />~ <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />17 <br /> <br />, <br />, <br />, <br />, <br />~ <br /> <br />. <br />