|
|
 
|
Altered waves of grain (Monday, March 24, 2003 -- CropChoice news) -- Pamela Sherrid, U.S. News & World Report: It's 32 degrees, positively balmy
for a winter morning in Bismarck. But inside the state
capitol, additional heat is rising as the House Agriculture
Committee debates biotechnology.
"I'm growing genetically
modified soybeans, so I'm not antibiotech," says state Rep.
Phillip Mueller. "But lots of our customers don't want
genetically modified wheat, and they've told us they don't
want it. So we'd better not do it."
The short history of genetically modified agriculture has
been riddled with contradiction and controversy.
Spearheaded by agricultural chemical giant Monsanto, GM
crops have proved a dazzling success in the United States.
The first such seeds were introduced in 1996, and already
75 percent of soybean acreage and 34 percent of corn
acreage are planted with GM varieties. But in many other
countries, it's a different story. Europeans, more
traditional-minded and fearful after the mad cow disease
debacle, largely reject GM food, and Japan and many
developing nations share their concerns about potential
risks to human health and the environment. Can't win. This
poses a dilemma for farmers, who want the cost-lowering
benefits of GM seed, like the ability to withstand
herbicides or resist pests, but fear losing export markets.
Proponents also believe GM crops can help feed the world's
hungry. Earlier this year, the United States was set to sue
the European Union for its anti-GM policies but backed off
to avoid antagonizing its allies as the Iraqi war looms.
Wheat remains the last major grain without a
commercialized biotech seed. But Monsanto is awaiting U.S.
government approval of a wheat seed that can stand up to
its popular weedkiller, Roundup. The first variety on tap
is hard red spring wheat, prized for its high protein and
used primarily in bread. Wheat is the biggest crop in the
heavily agricultural economy of North Dakota, which is the
largest grower of hard red spring wheat in the nation--with
about half going to exports. "If the world decided not to
buy our wheat, it could really wreck our state," says Lt.
Gov. Jack Dalrymple. One sticking point for farmers:
Before GM wheat is unleashed, there has to be a way to keep
it segregated from conventional wheat. But it's not clear
who will pay for the special harvesting, storage, and
transport. "I take my wheat to a huge transit terminal 80
miles west of here, where they load the same grain on one
long train with 110 cars," says Dennis Renner, who farms in
Mandan, N.D. "They're not set up to keep stuff separate."
Varieties can also intermingle through cross-pollination in
the field. Tainted. Organic farmers feel that threat most
acutely, as government standards state that nothing GM can
be dubbed organic. Already, organic farmers can no longer
grow canola because of seed stock contamination by GM
canola. "If genetic modification of a crop gives a farmer
such a cost advantage, it should be his responsibility to
keep his pollen on his side of the fence," says Theresa
Podoll, executive director of the Northern Plains
Sustainable Agriculture Society, an organic farming group.
"This is a situation where if you adopt a technology, it
could ruin my livelihood."
Even mainstream U.S. consumers may not like anyone's
messing with wheat. "We are talking about the staff of
life," says Betsy Faga, president of the North American
Millers' Association. Most U.S. consumers don't know or
care that, say, corn-syrup sweetener in processed foods is
made from GM corn. But the baking industry fears consumers
will react differently to biotech wheat because it is
usually the main ingredient in bread, crackers, and cookies.
Many experts believe agricultural biotech wouldn't be so
contentious today if GM crops had been initially rolled out
with nutritional benefits, like the wheat Monsanto is
developing for people allergic to gluten. Clearer benefits
for farmers would help, too. In North Dakota, farmers would
jump at wheat modified to withstand the fungal blight scab,
a variety that Syngenta, the big, Swiss- based agribusiness
company, is working on. "If Monsanto were offering scab
resistance, it would be a whole different ballgame," says
Marvin Nelson, a crop consultant in Rolla, N.D. Even if it
gets the U.S. go-ahead, Monsanto has agreed to wait until
Japan and Canada give their thumbs up before marketing GM
wheat. To protect exports, the company has also promised to
wait until the grain industry establishes handling
protocols and a system to prove that a product is GM free.
Most legislators in North Dakota see biotech as the future
of agriculture and don't want to discourage private
investment in research and development. That's why they
recently rejected bills that would have given the state, not
Monsanto, the power to control the timing of GM wheat's
release. But opponents are taking their case to the federal
government. Commercializing GM wheat is surely no piece of
cake. GRAPHIC: Picture, North Dakotans ponder the future of
wheat, their mainstay.
| |
