1.Biotech wheat pits farmer vs. farmer
2.Monsanto seeks import permit for genetically modified wheat GM wheat - US double talk?
---

1.Biotech wheat pits farmer vs. farmer
Chicago Tribune January 25, 2004

The future of an industry could rest in N. Dakota, where some growers worry about losing foreign markets that are resisting gene-altered food

By Judith Graham and Andrew Martin

Judith Graham reported from North Dakota and Andrew Martin reported from St. Louis and Washington, D.C. [shortened]

Terry Wanzek, a farmer and politician, promotes genetically modified wheat as a potential savior for the state's sluggish farm economy. But that position damaged his political career: Wanzek lost his state Senate seat to an opponent who ran on an anti-biotech wheat platform.

The lonely wheat fields of North Dakota have become the front line in an escalating international debate over genetically modified wheat, a new product from agricultural giant Monsanto that is being reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration.

The battle has pitted farmer against farmer, with proponents of the new technology arguing that biotech wheat will pull the grain growers out of years of malaise and opponents worrying that it could contaminate their fields and scare off foreign customers who are wary of genetic modification.

The biotech wheat debate even reached the Statehouse in Bismarck, where the North Dakota House of Representatives passed a moratorium on biotech wheat that later was defeated by the Senate. Some North Dakota farmers say they will refuse to plant the crop. "I can't envision why we want to do this," said Jim Bobb, the grain division manager for Southwest Grain in Taylor, N.D. "Europe is opposed to this. [South] Korea doesn't want it. There are very few customers who have said they will take it."

In the span of six weeks this fall, Bobb said five groups of foreign business people made the long trek to his offices to ask essentially the same question: Are North Dakota farmers going to plant genetically modified wheat? "It's a good two- or three-hour discussion every time," Bobb said. "I don't think the Japanese left very comfortably, sad to say."

Heartland of controversy Genetically modified wheat is controversial in other states as well but nowhere as much as here. North Dakota is the largest producer of hard red spring wheat, the modified version of which Monsanto hopes to market. More than three dozen projects are under way to develop genetically engineered wheat plants, but Monsanto is the first to seek regulatory approval, hoping to replicate the success it has had with genetically modified corn and soybeans. But while those crops have been accepted with relatively little controversy, the debate over genetically engineered wheat has been far more intense, mostly because so much of the American crop--nearly half--is sold abroad, where biotech crops have received a chilly reception.

Consumers in Japan, South Korea and in Europe, who are some of America's biggest customers for wheat, have indicated that they do not want a bioengineered  version of the crop.

Just how much international markets matter to U.S. agriculture was underscored by the discovery of mad cow disease last month. Within a week, 90 percent of export markets closed their doors to U.S. beef.

Altered wheat a linchpin

Michael Rodemeyer, executive director of the non-profit Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology,  which tracks the industry, said a rejection of genetically  modified wheat by American farmers could have a chilling effect on the overall biotech industry because companies would be reluctant to invest in other plants.

"I think that  wheat is really the bellwether of where the technology is going to go," Rodemeyer said. "The real question is whether the market is going to accept biotechnology in another food crop."

Lynn Selle, a farmer in Halliday, said he fears that farmers will have no way to contain biotech wheat once its planted. Once genetically modified wheat is planted, he said, there are so many ways it can spread--from combines traveling down the road to trucks going to grain elevators to birds carrying pollen--that it would be impossible to keep it separate from regular wheat. Some foreign buyers have indicated they will not accept conventional American wheat if it is contaminated with even small amounts of biotech wheat.

"Right now our wheat is a proven product," Selle said. "Why mess with it?"
---

2.Monsanto seeks import permit for genetically modified wheat
GM wheat - US double talk?
January 27, 2004
http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=283&fArticleId=334181

Comparisons between the US military invasion of Iraq, and the efforts of American seed corporations to foist genetically modified food on world consumers may seem far-fetched.

Yet the analogy appears to have growing relevance in the case of a new GM wheat seed produced by the American seed giant, Monsanto Corporation.

Last week, Monsanto advertised plans to get permission from the South African government to allow importation of GM wheat which is yet to be approved elsewhere in the world.

When George Bush threatened to invade Iraq last year, his stated intention was to unearth weapons of mass destruction and promote democracy.

But in the run-up to the final invasion, Bush's officials encountered strong opposition. For many, oil and American imperialism loomed large behind the scenes. Anti-war protest marches were held in several capitals, but eventually the warplanes, tanks and troops went to Baghdad.

In the case of GM food and cash crops, US and European seed corporationshave promoted their "genetically enhanced" seeds as a solution to end world hunger.

Yet consumers and governments in Europe, Britain, Japan and elsewhere have mostly turned up their noses for a variety of reasons, ranging from ethical and religious objections, to environmental, trade and safety concerns.

Malawi and Zimbabwe also refused to accept GM maize as relief aid, despite the starvation of many citizens.

World consumer polls also show overwhelming consumer resistance to GM crops, or clear demands for food-labelling policies which give people a choice not to eat GM.

And while large crops of transgenic maize, soya and cotton are now grown commercially in the US, Canada, South Africa and South America, Monsanto's GM wheat offering has run into a wall.

The opposition has been particularly strong from farmers in Canada, one of the world's major wheat exporters.

According to the Canadian Wheat Board, opposition to GM wheat is primarily for economic reasons. They are worried about the loss of exports markets - notably Europe and Japan.

Last year, Canada's wheat board chief, Ken Ritter, wrote to farming minister Lyle Vanclieff to explain that there was "strong and widespread" customer resistance to GM seed technology. In short, wheat farmers worried that moving to GM could be "devastating" unless the interests of farmers and the grain industry were protected.

The Canadian board said it had attempted to work with Monsanto to develop a set of conditions which should be met before GM wheat was  commercialised. "However, we see that Monsanto continues to march toward the point of no return," said Ritter.

According to Mariam Mayet, an attorney who heads the African Centre of Biosafety, the attempt to get import approval in South Africa was part of a "pre-emptive" bid to create new markets in Africa because of consumer resistance elsewhere.

Dangerous

"The import of GM wheat into South Africa, and thereafter to other parts of Africa, is unnecessary and dangerous and should be rejected out of hand by the South African government.

"Why should Africa be the dumping ground for a risky laboratory-made food which no one else in the world wants to eat?" she said.

But Wally Green, Monsanto's local spokesman, said there was no question of GM wheat coming here unless farmers of the US and Canada first chose to grow it. GM wheat was not being grown commercially anywhere in the world, so even if South Africa agreed to an import permit, there were no supplies available. "The safety of all GM crops has been evaluated inside out. Over 84 million euros (R760 million) have been spent assessing their safety and all the studies have come to the conclusion that they are  safe."

Green said Monsanto had spent vast sums of money developing GM wheat and the decision to apply for commodity import permits to South Africa was  simply a first step to "provide South African scientists with the relevant data to look at".

"There is no attempt to sneak GM wheat into South Africa," he said.

Green said GM wheat would not be available for another three to four years - if it ever reached the market. So it would be suicidal for Monsanto to commercialise any GM product unless farmers agreed to grow it.

Nico Hawkins, an economist for Grain SA, said local wheat farmers were not opposed to GM technology, but, in this case, the authorities should follow a transparent process and allow everyone to sit around a table.

Hawkins said that as a net importer of wheat, the issue had more to do with the reaction of local consumers to GM wheat than export considerations.  Dr Julian Jaftha, South Africa's registrar of genetically modified organisms, said any application to import milled GM wheat would have to go through the "normal, independent" safety checks.

Mayet, however, says that since GM wheat has never been grown or analysed in this country, South African scientists would be entirely dependent on safety information supplied to them by Monsanto.

And, in the absence of a clear food-labelling policy, South Africans would have no choice in the matter.  

Go to a Print friendly Page

Email this Article to a Friend

Back to the Archive