By ANN HINCH
Assistant Editor

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In supporting a call for commercial seed trait providers to develop biotech, or genetically modified (GMO), qualities for wheat, nine U.S., Canadian and Australian organizations set out six reasons for doing so.

Likewise, 15 groups from the same three countries protesting biotech wheat put forth a retaliatory list to counter those reasons.

Vitality

Both sides point out wheat is an ancient crop that humans have cultivated for thousands of years as a basic part of their diet. The pro-GMO groups believe trait providers can help farmers better supply the world with higher yielding, better quality wheat.

Anti-GMO groups say over time, farmers have bred better wheat varieties for their local regions and that seed adapted to a particular soil and climate is critical to ensuring local food supply in times of weather disasters. They add while public scientists have helped with this breeding, multinational seed companies have “played an insignificant role in fundamental wheat seed development.”

Biotech’s role

Pro-GMO groups point to biotech as being able to strengthen wheat’s disease, insect and weather resistance, and make better use of water and nutrition. They also say biotech traits could help boost wheat’s nutritional properties for humans.

“Biotechnology is not the only answer to these questions,” their statement reads, in part, “but it will be a significant component in solutions.”

Anti-GMO groups say the only biotech trait being considered at present for wheat is glyphosate resistance, also known as Roundup Ready – named for both the herbicide and the crop-protective technology designed to resist it, developed by Monsanto Co. This trait is only to simplify herbicide application, not to improve yield, they charge.

They say the improvements to wheat over millennia so far have proceeded well without GMO technology.

Further, they allege biotech seed companies have used their ownership of the technology in other types of seed – such as corn, soybeans and canola – to force farmers to pay higher prices for those and treatment chemicals.

They also state the number of hungry people in the world has gone up, not dropped, in the 13 years since GMO crops were introduced.

Competition

Wheat is dropping in popularity among farmers, the pro-GMO groups allege, because biotechnology has enabled them to instead plant other crops with higher productivity and lower input costs. If this continues, they speculate farmers will keep dropping the amount of wheat they plant in favor of other crops, and create a shortage of wheat for global consumers.

The anti-GMO groups countered that according to a March survey, western Canadian farmers intend to plant more wheat, barley and peas, and less GMO canola. They also state there is no evidence to back up the claim that biotechnology increases crop yields.

Yield economics

Those supporting GMO for wheat cite the crop’s “slow growth trend” for increasing yields over time as a disadvantage in comparison with competing crops, saying “the longer it takes to increase the growth rate, the bigger will be the hole from which the industry must climb.”

Focusing too narrowly on higher yields has actually harmed farmers and the environment, the anti-GMO groups state, because in order to get those yields, the farmers have to spend more on fertilizers and chemical inputs. They argue rather than seeking higher quantity, breeders and farmers should want improved quality wheat – which these groups say is possible through conventional plant breeding methods, and where research needs to focus.

Contamination?

The pro-GMO groups state that biotechnology is strictly regulated even before commercialization and that it is engineered to deliver promised traits “with a high degree of precision” into those crops. They add, “Over 10 years of global experience with biotechnology has demonstrated a convincing record of safety and environmental benefits as well as quality and productivity gains.”

Genetic engineering, the anti-GMO groups argue, is a highly imprecise technology. Government regulation, they say, relies more on corporate data – from the trait providers – than peer-reviewed research. They counter, “Over 10 years of experience with (GMO) crops has exposed a convincing record of high levels of irreversible contamination and corporate control over seeds as well as continued scientific uncertainty.

“Additionally, if (GMO) wheat is released commercially, contamination would be inevitable and markets would view all wheat produced from these areas as (GMO) unless proven to be non-(GMO). Farmers growing (GMO) wheat will take on all of the responsibilities, costs and liabilities, with little available legal recourse to recover their losses.”

Wheat left behind?

Again, pro-GMO groups cite lack of biotech research for wheat, and private and public investment in same, as leaving it behind with respect to advances in other commodity crops. New GMO development will increase wheat research and attract new scientists to the field, they add.

The reason seed companies are not investing in wheat research, the anti-GMO groups explain, is because of strong competition from public plant breeding programs and the tendency of farmers to save wheat seed from year to year for planting. Introducing biotech patents into wheat seed would allow companies to control the seed supply and price, which these groups regard as a negative.