Report Warns of ‘Superweeds’ Creation : Agriculture: A coalition of environmental groups says that genetic engineering to induce herbicide-resistant crops and trees poses dangers.

The genetic engineering of herbicide-resistant crops and trees is a dangerous technology that could lead to increased pesticide use and groundwater pollution and create “superweeds,” a coalition of environmental groups contended in a report released Monday.

The report by the Biotechnology Working Group urged the federal government to stop funding the research and development of advanced-technology pesticides because of their potential dangers. The group, a committee of 18 environmental, farm, church and consumer organizations, released its study at press conferences in Washington, St. Paul, Minn., and Davis, Calif.

The study identifies 27 companies and 21 public universities and research centers, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, that are conducting plant breeding and biotechnology research to create crops and forest trees that are genetically tolerant of chemical herbicides.

The goal of this research is “so that you can spray more pesticides,” said Michael Picker, West Coast director of the National Toxics Campaign Fund.

The development of such plants, the group said, would allow farmers to apply herbicides liberally, killing weeds and other unwanted plants without fear of adverse effects on their host crop. In addition to the danger of poisonous runoff and other contamination, the group said, herbicide-resistant “superweeds” may mutate from the genetically engineered host plants via cross-pollination.

In Washington, the group promoted a bill to be presented this week by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) that would cut the $10.8 million spent annually on herbicide-tolerance research.

The bill would also shift the funds to a program that develops a holistic approach to farming, including the rotation and diversification of crops, which in some cases have proven effective in controlling weed growth without chemical sprays. That program has received about $4.4 million a year since 1988.

“USDA’s research policy on herbicide-resistant plants is short-sighted and misguided,” said Leahy, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, in a prepared statement.

“Let’s put our scientists to work helping farmers grow more with less herbicides, instead of helping chemical companies sell more herbicides.”

Simultaneously in Davis, Calif., another press conference was held outside the offices of Calgene Inc., a biotechnology firm trying to develop a cotton seed tolerant to the French-manufactured herbicide bromoxynil.

Zachary S. Wozhok, Calgene’s president and chief operating officer, dismissed the group’s report as “grandstanding” and “filled with unfounded statements.”

“The extreme of their argument could be that all chemicals are bad,” said Wozhok, who emphasized that his company’s emphasis is on technological advances that can reduce the use of pesticides. “I don’t know where agriculture would be today without chemicals.”

If approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, herbicide-tolerant crops could have a major impact on California’s $16-billion farming industry, which consumes up to half of the nation’s pesticides.

Eight of the world’s largest pesticide manufacturers are conducting herbicide-tolerant research. They already control about 70% of the world’s profit from pesticide sales and spent the 1980s gaining control of seed companies, vying for a share of a potentially massive market. The eight companies are the United States’ DuPont, Dow/Elanco and Monsanto, plus the European firms Ciba-Geigy, ICI, Rhone-Poulenc, Hoechst and Bayer.

Alan Goldhammer, director of technical affairs for the Industrial Biotechnology Assn., asserted that the EPA can be counted on to safeguard the public from exposure to potentially toxic chemicals, and that the industry is only providing its customers a wider choice.

“The farmers can either buy the seeds or not buy the seeds, buy the chemicals or not buy the chemicals,” Goldhammer said. “The market is going to determine the ultimate acceptance of the product.”