It seems to me that there is a window of opportunity for
educating more producers about sustainable ag issues. Ciba-Geigy's
efforts are at least putting a "thinking cap" on their targeted
producers. What if they also received an information package about
alternatives/risks of atrazine-related herbicides which contested the
industry's claimes point-by-point? Maybe we could get some of those
producers to write letters quite contrary to the industry's intentions! We
could use SANET to generate information summaries from our "wealth of
experts".
I would offer my time/efforts for a project with you or
other interested persons which would focus on atrazine education of these
producers. Possibly some existing groups in pesticide
reform could offer assistance as well. For example, we would need to get
the mailing list of the CIBA-GEIGY atrazine campaign, as well as
$$money$$ for a mailing. Or is there a less expensive means to
reach these targeted producers? It would also be worthwhile to get
feedback from elected officials about the level of letter writing
generated by CIBA-GEIGY's "activistism". I would think that everyone on
SANET would be interested in this aspect of the debate. . .
Rob Kluson
Biology Dept.
Univ. of South Florida
On Wed, 1 Feb 1995, Michele Gale-Sinex/CIAS wrote:
> Howdy, all--
>
> You may have seen in various farm publications--or received a direct
> mail piece--outlining Ciba-Geigy's campaign to keep atrazine and
> atrazine-containing herbicides from cancellation by the EPA's special
> review process.
>
> Ciba's direct mail campaign involves sending a letter-writing kit to
> producers that says, in part, "We at Ciba are convinced atrazine
> does not present unreasonable risks to humans for the environment,
> and we believe an objective scientific review would lead the EPA to
> the same conclusion....It's important that the EPA hear from growers
> who use and need atrazine....I'm enclosing some basic information
> that may help you prepare your letter. [signed] Leo Bontempo,
> President" The goal is to get producers to write to the EPA and
> "tell the EPA: how important atrazine or atrazine-containing
> products are for your farm, what atrazine costs you, and what will
> happen to your costs and yields if you can't use atrazine anymore."
>
> I have the kit here. What interests me about it is that Ciba is
> using activist tactics to enlist farmers to help the corporation and
> by extension Sandoz, Zeneca, BASF, DuPont, and Rhone-Poulenc retain
> their threatened $200 million per year in atrazine revenues (about
> 15% of U.S. herbicide costs, according to /Farm Futures/ magazine).
> Ciba's herbicide product manager estimates Ciba gets 25% of its crop
> protection chemical business from atrazine-containing products, and
> he also claims that Ciba is "the data expert" on atrazine's health
> and environmental risks.
>
> We've talked in the past in this group about the relationship between
> science and revenues as regards biotechnology. This is another
> example. But what intrigues me is the use of activist techniques
> where the goal is to have citizens protect a manufacturer's market
> share.
>
> I'm wondering if anyone else has run across this, has any thoughts,
> or knows of any actions that are currently taking place in response
> to Ciba's campaign. Pointers to other online sources of info would
> also be appreciated.
>
> Peace and thanks--
> Michele
>
>
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> Michele Gale-Sinex
> Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems
> Agricultural Technology and Family Farm Institute
> UW-Madison--Voice: (608) 262-8018 FAX: (608) 265-3020
>
> I always understood everything Casey Stengel said.
> There are days this worries me. --Anonymous
>