By MICHELE F. MIHALJEVICH
Indiana Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A lack of acceptance of biotech wheat by consumers has hampered efforts to bring it to the market, according to an official with the National Assoc. of Wheat Growers (NAWG). Potential domestic and foreign consumers have concerns about the use of biotech wheat, said CEO Dana Patterson.

“Domestic buyers are uncertain and question if there will be differences in perception in fairly minor ingredients versus a major ingredient in their foods,” she said. “Bread is very central to the American diet, and that’s where the uncertainty is for consumers.”

Half of the wheat grown in the United States is exported, with Nigeria and Japan ranking first and second in amounts of wheat purchased, she noted.

“The attitude of consumers in Nigeria is heavily influenced by European attitudes, and consumers in Japan are very concerned about biotech in their wheat foods. We’re trying to work through those things,” she explained.

Five years ago, biotech wheat traits were developed by researchers, but they were never brought to the marketplace because the industry wasn’t ready to accept them, Patterson said, adding it could take several more years for the industry and consumers to accept biotech wheat.

She’s encouraged by a trilateral agreement signed last year by nine wheat grower groups in the U.S., Canada and Australia, three of the world’s largest wheat producers. In the agreement, the organizations expressed support for biotech wheat.

“We will work toward the goal of synchronized commercialization of biotech traits in our wheat crops,” the agreement reads. “We believe it is in all of our best interests to introduce biotech wheat varieties in a coordinated fashion to minimize market disruptions and shorten the period of adjustment.”

The agreement shows that growers around the world want access to advanced technology, Patterson explained. “The goal will be to meet that progress with an educational process for consumers so that we get to the same point at the same time.”

While Patterson supports the use of biotech wheat, she said she knows it isn’t for everyone.

“We understand this hits some people very deeply. We want an industry that supports the ability of the consumer to choose. We want to keep traditional wheat growing, as well as organic wheat,” she said.

Just as they have with biotech wheat, European countries have been reluctant to accept biotech soybeans, said Jim Andrew, a member of the American Soybean Assoc. (ASA) soybean biotechnology working group.

“Here’s a product that’s well-researched and has many years of success, but you can counter a lot of science with propaganda,” he said. “It gets rather frustrating.

“We’re trying to help eliminate starvation and malnutrition in the world, and African nations tend to look to Europe for advice. They’re reluctant to import genetically modified products because they get advice from Europe.”

Research on biotech soybeans and corn began in the 1980s, Andrew said. Biotech soybeans have been available in the U.S. since the mid-1990s. This year, 93 percent of the soybeans raised in the U.S. are genetically modified, as is 86 percent of corn, he noted.

Soybean seeds may be modified to be more insect- and drought-resistant, and to produce soybean oil with fewer trans fats, Andrew said.

There are several countries and farmers’ groups worldwide opposed to the use of biotech foods, including wheat, said Eric Darier, director of Greenpeace in Quebec, Canada.

Earlier this year, 233 farmer and consumer groups in 26 countries issued a statement to stop the commercialization of genetically modified wheat, according to the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

As an environmental organization, Greenpeace is concerned about the environmental impacts of genetically engineered crop systems on biodiversity in general, but also on agricultural biodiversity, Darier said.

“Fifteen years after the first commercialization of GE (genetically engineered) crops and lots of promise, the only GE crops available are mainly – probably around 80 percent – GE plants tolerant to one herbicide (Roundup), in the case of Monsanto GE,” he said.

“The rest are GE crops that produce a pesticide against one predator (such as the corn borer). It is a matter of time that pests become also tolerant to Bt crops. This will force farmers to use more pesticides and more toxic pesticides.”

Representatives from Monsanto declined to comment for this story.

GE products aren’t necessary, Darier added. “By investing sufficient resources in non-GE research on wheat, farmers could get greater diversities of wheat varieties, better adapted to some of the challenges,” he said. “In Canada, there is great research on wheat that gets far better results that GE wheat.”

Greenpeace and others opposed to biotech crops have concerns about their safety, Darier said.

“The health concerns are the same for any GE crops that are herbicide tolerant or produce a pesticide. It will eventually lead to the need to use greater quantities of pesticides and they shall have to be more and more toxic,” he said.

“Farmers are already twice as likely to get Parkinson’s disease compared to the general population, due to toxic exposure,” he claimed.

The U.S. government has a long history of providing a safe food supply, and has regulations in place to assure that, Patterson said. “There aren’t any medical cases out there that have a health implication for biotech food,” she noted. “And if it is unsafe, let’s study that.”

The safety of biotech products is an area ripe for rumor, Andrew added.

“There have been no reports of health problems anywhere in the world,” he explained. “These products have been fully vetted and very well researched.

“U.S. consumers have been eating biotech products for years. There’s absolutely no reason to be concerned about biotech wheat, based on the safety record of biotech corn and soybeans.”