WSP05005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OOtH82 genetics and physiology, including HR. Agrigenetics, now owned by the chemical company Lubizol, has $20 million in research contracts with eleven universities including Oregon State University, University of California, University of Colorado and CornelJ.l7 Choices for the Heartland describes two HR proJects at the University of Wisconsin and Michigan State University. Ciba-Geigy gave Michigan State Univer- sity' a grant to work on Atrazine resistant varieties. because MSU had discovered the chloroplast gene responsible for Atrazine resistance in the early eighties. The principal objective of many such contracts is to identify germplasm with herbicide tolerance for the development of commercial varieties by private industry.'s This shift in the clienteleofland grant cqlleges should be considered' as a conflict of interest. Farmers' questions are being replaced by those of agriculture input companies. Agricultural colleges collect knowledge and technologies to assist industry In the development of salable products"" The univer- sity fails 'to focus on options which would reduce the farmer's input costs, a major initiative of the sustain- able position. Instead, by assisting the corporate world, they help increase costs for farmers. There is also the opportunity for the college to gain f"Inancially from royalties and patents. Herbicide resistance courts environmental disaster as well. Many crops have weedy. relatives that they are able to pollinate, generating concern that HR genes could move into these weed popula- tions. Wild and cultivated potatoes in South America', corn and teosinte throughout Central America as well as sorghum andjohnsongrass here in the U.S., all hybridize. Hybridization with wild species can instill vigor into a crop's gene pool, but can also transfer crop genes into wild populations." Secondly, if a crop's gene pool acquired, either naturally or in the lab, many different genes that gave it resistance to several herbicides, it is possible for the crop itself to become a pest. For example, soybeans are candidates for six HR genes that could give them tolerance to six different herbicides.20 Finally, the adaptive nature of weeds to herbicides is phenomenal~ Over f"Ifty species of weeds have been documented to withstand several herbicides; ten years ago that' number was twelve. If HR crops lead to anincreased use of weed killers, weeds will experience stress and adapt accordingly. This could further the development of new resistant weed species that could require more lethal chemicals for their removal from the f"Ield. In 1982, f"Ifteen representatives of universities, corporations and the USDA met and critiqued the government's rolein agricultural Science. The resulting Winrock Report and the action that followed elevated USDA research to the "cutting edge" of science. It also allocated research funds competi- tively rather than distributing them to states equally. The outcome: biotechnology research programs in more prominent universities, doing work judged to be adventurous in plant molecular biology, are receiving' more competitive monies from the government." The charade now presented by many land grant leaders and their industrial supporting actors portrays biotechnology as sustainable agriculture.22 Not only isbioteehnology siphoning off the few dollars available for agricultural research and hindering the , opportunity to pursue sustainable alternatives, but it perpetuates the social and economic decline of rural communities. While land grant colleges come under . increasing pressure "to serve private interest (of industry) atthe expense of the public interest,'" they abet and accelerate a "trend toward economic concen- tration in agriculture, decrease the 'number of farms and the deterioration of rural communities.... These problems are rooted in the industrial agriculture of today. Technological 'fuessuch as herbicide resis- tance will only continue to aggravate the problems. , The agenda of the sustainable agriculture movement is to seek solutions that promote the conservation of all resources to insure the long-term health of agriculture and society as a whole. Herbi- cide resistance in our crops obstructs any such movement, prolongs the farm's chemical dependence and continues environmental impoverishment. . Marty Strange of the, Center for Rural Affairs has written: Many of the new technologies not only made it possible to farm more land, but made it necessary to farm more land to pay for the technology.26 " . "i ! , ~ ~ ~ " ~: & ~~ ~... M ~ . ..' , ~ ;: ~~ ~ t{: :~ ~ ,;'; ~~ %~ All of the revolutions in agriculture-mechani, cal; chemical and biological- have burdened the land. with a heavy debt. With herbicide resistance, we exact a greater demand of the land and expect contin- ued high levels of productivity despite its eroding soil collateral. How the land will pay is unknown, but it may pay dearly for our shortsightedness. ;:: f:~: :?'~ ~ l': iX f;: ~- ~ ~ if ~ ~: ~~ .. References and Notes 1. National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, 1989. Alternative Agriculture, National Academy Press, Washing. ton, D.C., p. 107. 2. National Research Council, p.45.3. Biotechnology Working Group (BWG), 1990. Biotechnology's Bitter Harvest, p. 13. 4. BWG, p. 13. 5.' BWG, p. 45. 6. J.R. Pallaot aod R.J .A. Conoett, "The Influence ofBMechnology on Agrichemical Business" in Biotechnology and Crop Improvement and Protection, Peter Day ed., Lavenhem Press Ltd., 1986, p. 96. 7. BWG, p. 44. 8. H. LeBaron ahd J. Gressel, 1982. "Summary of Accomplishments, Conclusions andFutureNeeds," Herbicide Resistance in Plants, I.e. Baron & Gresse~ eds., John Wiley &Sons, Inc., N.Y., N.Y., p. 359. 9. Dollars & Sense, June 90, p. 23. ~, f B( f~ }~- ::.- " ~-~<. ~-: \: i.'~ ':'^' ",:;: ~~~ ;.:";" .~ . 18 '.;~