Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Deere 4440 cab tractor racked up $18,000 at farm retirement auction
Indiana legislature passes bills for ag land purchases, broadband grants
Make spring planting safety plans early to avoid injuries
Michigan soybean grower visits Dubai to showcase U.S. products
Scientists are interested in eclipse effects on crops and livestock
U.S. retail meat demand for pork and beef both decreased in 2023
Iowa one of the few states to see farms increase in 2022 Ag Census
Trade, E15, GREET, tax credits the talk at Commodity Classic
Ohioan travels to Malta as part of US Grains Council trade mission
FFA members learn about Australian culture, agriculture during trip
Timing of Dicamba ruling may cause issues for 2024 planting
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
Groups want to nix GMO tech for wheat research

By ANN HINCH
Assistant Editor

WASHINGTON, D.C. — This isn’t the first time several groups have banded together to oppose the idea of genetically modified (GMO or GE) wheat, but it remains to be seen if they will have as much success as they did five years ago.

On the heels of nine ag-related organizations from the United States, Canada and Australia recently pledging to cooperate in encouraging commercial development of biotech traits for wheat seed, 15 others from the three countries have announced their intent to oppose it. They cite agronomic, economic and environmental concerns.

A few months ago, the National Assoc. of Wheat Growers (NAWG) surveyed American wheat growers at random on their opinion of biotech traits, and received an overwhelming majority of approval. In mid-May, it released a statement that several wheat and processor organizations from the three countries were cooperating to encourage biotech development because they “agreed it was in the best interest of all three producer communities to introduce biotechnology in a coordinated fashion to minimize market disruption.”

“What we wanted to do was get us around the table and say, ‘Look this is going to be a benefit to all three of us,’” explained Daren Coppock, NAWG CEO.

He said several years ago Monsanto was working on a Roundup Ready (RR) wheat seed to resist glyphosate application. Lucy Sharratt, coordinator with the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network – a coalition of 18 groups and one of the organizations opposing biotech wheat traits – added that Monsanto ended up withdrawing its request for approval from U.S. and Canadian governments in 2004.

She explained this came after a long campaign against biotech wheat.

A big reason for the opposition was the economic impact it could have on U.S. and Canadian growers, who might lose customers – estimated by at least one expert at about one-third of their business – in the European Union, Asia and elsewhere due to those countries’ opposition GMO food crops.

“As far as we’re concerned, this debate is over,” she said. “Wheat is an ancient food that can’t be improved upon, as far as (consumers) are concerned.”

Darrin Qualman, director of research with the National Farmers Union in Canada, explained, “It was a huge coalition, and we certainly had a lot of U.S. partners.”

Coppock said much has changed in the last five years, however; notably, there is more concern about wheat production being able to keep up with global demand for food and livestock feed – when corn and soybean prices turned sharply upward, many producers turned to wheat, which was cheaper.

Too, the target market several years ago was limited to spring wheat varieties, which cut out several states in the Midwest and Southeast that almost exclusively plant winter wheat.

Coppock cited biotech being able to strengthen resistance to disease and drought as positive for yields – especially drought tolerance. He said this is important to many wheat growers, as well as to millers and bakers, who want to ensure a long-term supply of grain. Further, he asserted U.S. consumers, at least, are mostly ambivalent about biotech in their crops and not as concerned as opponent groups believe.

The opposition has focused on RR, he added, but that isn’t the only trait possible, nor is it the most important to growers. He said NAWG was behind coordinating the “encouragement of biotech” statement, and that Monsanto and other trait providers “had absolutely no role in that.”

Because of increased market volatility in prices and supply of basic commodities, including wheat, “it’s fairly well recognized today wheat has been disadvantaged because of the lack of investment or application of technology when compared to other crops like corn and soybeans, for example,” said Ben Kampelman, in public affairs for Monsanto Co.

“We have developed technology in the other row crops that we believe may have some practical portability to wheat. We’ve always noted there may be some opportunity for us to re-enter this market if conditions were right.

Wheat is not one of Monsanto’s immediate priorities, it is a space – like many others – that we evaluate regularly and continue to consider as a potential future business opportunity.”
Both Sharratt and Qualman said it’s unlikely RR is not still the main priority Monsanto has for wheat.

Qualman said if trait providers are capable of developing drought resistance, they would have already applied it to corn and soybeans.

Sharratt said besides RR technology, “Anything else is a promise far into the mists of the future.”

Qualman said the opposing groups believe Monsanto and any other biotech trait providers want to control the wheat seed market so they can charge what they like for a bag of seed and control its usage.

He said this is already the case with corn, soybeans and other commodity crops, many of which are sold under contracts requiring farmers to buy new seed each year rather than use leftover seed.
Wheat farmers, on the other hand, can easily save unused seed or get it from their storage bins to plant the following year, without paying a company extra for more.

The 15 opponents also worry about the agronomic effects of planting even more RR crops than are already in fields. Qualman said if a farmer rotates crops, having RR varieties makes it harder to kill off rogue “volunteer” crops that sprout in a field of some other crop – such as corn in soybeans or the like. He said also, some researchers suspect a correlation between glyphosate usage and aggravated fusarium head blight, or head scab.

“We’re not against having really productive seed,” he said. He added, however, that the ability to produce more wheat could drag down the per-bushel price farmers get, and that this is basic supply-and-demand economics. He pointed out it’s unlikely input costs would fall as fast as prices – since this hasn’t been the case with corn and soybeans.

“A lot of the concerns (these opponents) raised have actually been considered by industry dialogue, in the past couple of years,” Coppock countered.

He pointed out any biotech traits would probably take 10 years to get to market anyway, since the research and development phase is lengthy. He also said the entire world isn’t against biotech – South American countries, for example, are eager for GMO wheat.
Farm World will have more on this issue next week.

6/10/2009