Flour power

A farmer speaks: no to GMO wheat 11

wheatEditor’s note: Several weeks ago, the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) issued a press release proclaiming that 75 percent of its member farmers support the rollout of genetically modified wheat seeds. According to NAWG, wheat farmers are clamoring to follow their corn and soy counterparts toward a biotech-dominated future. Todd Leake, a wheat farmer and NAWG member, has a different viewpoint.

——————————-

Since the Nixon Administration, farmers have been told that their survival was dependent on the ability to compete in the global marketplace. Wheat producers have been particularly mindful of the need to grow a product that meets broadest possible consumer and market expectations. As a result, fifty percent of the wheat produced in this country is destined for buyers in foreign markets, and these buyers have very specific requirements for the wheat they purchase.

Over the last 50 years we have worked diligently to develop and enhance our relationship with international buyers, who are routinely surveyed to determine which specific characteristics and traits they desire. We work with agronomists and plant breeders to develop hybrids that meet our customers’ expectations; in doing so, we have developed a mature and stable market for the wheat produced by U.S. farmers.

However, this is an increasingly shifting marketplace. Our competitors in other countries have developed the capacity to grow wheat for the export market, and buyers now have the luxury of being very selective. They are now spoiled for choice.

When Monsanto first petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture for deregulation of their Roundup Ready wheat, we feared consumer backlash based on the loss of European and Asian markets that corn growers experienced when genetically engineered (GE) corn varieties were commercialized in 1996. Our fears were substantiated through a Canadian Wheat Board buyer survey conducted in 2003, which determined that 83% of foreign buyers would not accept genetically engineered wheat and would seek alternate sources if either the United States or Canada commercialized a GE wheat variety. Building on that survey, Dr. Robert Wisner, a respected Iowa State agricultural economist, concluded that wheat producers would see a drop of as much as 35% in farmgate prices if GE wheat were commercialized.

Nothing has changed in the global marketplace for wheat, but a recent National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) survey would have the world believe that wheat growers themselves overwhelmingly support adoption of genetically engineered wheat.

But this couldn’t be further from the truth. Although NAWG has publicly claimed its survey finds that “more than three-quarters of the respondents approved a petition supporting the commercialization of biotechnology in wheat,” a close examination of that petition reveals that NAWG fundamentally misrepresents its own data, overstates the significance of the results, and exaggerates U.S. wheat growers’ demand for genetically engineered wheat - all to the detriment of its member farmers.

To begin with, NAWG states that only growers with more than 500 acres of wheat and more than 1,000 acres in total production were chosen to participate (to save on postage, NAWG claims); only 32% of them took part in the postcard solicitation survey. Every year I grow substantially more than 500 acres of wheat, and yet, I never received a survey. Why were particular farmers chosen and why were other growers left out?

The survey itself made virtually no effort to glean nuanced truth from its participants. Respondents were not asked whether or not they would grow GE wheat, only to endorse a petition that “encourages both public and private sectors to support the discovery and development of new technologies” for wheat. Biotechnology was merely one of many potential methods mentioned within the much broader context of NAWG’s stated desire to increase the productivity, profitability, and sustainability of the wheat growing industry, three things no sane wheat grower would disagree with.

Of the 21,262 survey cards sent out, 5,272 marked their checked the “I AGREE!’ biotech wheat/petition box. NAWG somehow interprets this as 76% of growers endorsing biotech wheat. NAWG apparently didn’t want to mention the 1, 635 wheat farmers who checked the I DISAGREE box and chose to ignore the 14,355 producers who likely tossed it aside with the rest of the junk mail.

I first became aware of this NAWG survey at a speech by NAWG CEO Daren Coppeck given at a breakout session of the Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers (MAWG) annual meeting in Grand Forks, North Dakota in Dec. 2008. In his speech Mr. Coppeck said “There will be biotech wheat.” He went further to say that enforcement actions against farmers would be necessary to protect biotech companies’ investment. Does it surprise me that Mr. Coppeck would be able to predict the outcome of a survey that had yet to be mailed out or he would advocate suing farmers that save their own wheat seed? Not really, because after years of attending such annual meetings and MAWG functions such as the annual wheat summits, I have witnessed the leadership of MAWG endorse GE wheat even when a poll of the membership attending did not. I have seen the leadership of MAWG endorse GE wheat even when there was no particular GE wheat trait that they were endorsing. In other words: GE wheat for the sake of GE wheat.

It is clear to farmers and close observers that improving productivity, profitability, and sustainability does not depend upon the introduction of genetically engineered wheat. In fact, the greatest strides in developing modern, superior wheat varieties have been made through traditional breeding methods, not genetic engineering. Introduction of GE wheat will cause wheat seed to become proprietary property of seed companies, increase seed costs for farmers and keep wheat producers under the thumb of 5 international seed companies.

NAWG’s claim of overwhelming demand is misleading at best, and does not represent the position of the farmers for which NAWG claims to speak. Even if NAWG’s survey had not been fudged, U.S. wheat growers know that there is zero market demand. We know our buyers, and they will simply not accept genetically engineered wheat. They have told us so to our face, politely and repeatedly.

The purpose of the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) is to promote our industry and to develop our markets, and it is funded with wheat grower dollars. To conduct and publish a survey that blatantly misrepresents the opinions of the very constituency it was created to serve is unconscionable. The commercialization of GE wheat will have one consequence only: the destruction of a stable, mature wheat producing industry that has taken 50 years to build.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Daren Coppock Posted 10:48 am
    14 May 2009

    Todd Leake has an interesting but unsubstantiated spin on the effort we took to measure and document our members' position on biotechnology.  Let me clarify several errors in his entertaining post:NAWG accurately reported the conclusions of the petition effort.  Most mail-out projects like this get a response rate of 5-10%, but we received a 32% response - a phenomenal response by normal expectations.  Of those that responded, 76% of them were in favor of the language in the petition, including a strong response in Mr. Leake's home state of North Dakota.  We made no assertion about the position of those who chose not to respond.  In contrast, Mr. Leake appears to believe all of those who didn't respond should be counted as "no" votes - we considered them abstentions, and we believe that is the appropriate view.There were 24% of the respondents who disagreed with the petition language, for a variety of reasons.  Our response cards invited people to provide comments with their responses, and several respondents did.  I have personally read every one of those comments and we will be releasing in the coming weeks a review of those comments.  The most common concern was over market acceptance - a concern I know Mr. Leake shares - and that concern has guided the intense work we've done over the last several years in working with customers throughout the wheat market chain to craft solutions and approaches that satisfy everyone's needs.  Mr. Leake's perception of market acceptance hasn't changed since 2003, but the market has changed significantly since then.
    For this petition, we purchased a database of wheat growers from an outside vendor.  We stipulated criteria such as a list of 30 states from which to draw, and specified a minimum of 500 acres of wheat and 1000 acres of total farm size.  This was done for two reasons: first, to keep the size of the database (and associated mailing costs) to a manageable size, and second, to ensure that we were sampling commercial wheat growers.  After specifying the criteria, we had no opportunity to hand-select those that were in the data set or not.  No doubt there were producers who should have been in that weren't, and vice versa, but that was completely outside our control.
    We know there will always be both consumers and producers who choose not to produce or buy wheat that would contain biotech traits.  All sectors of the industry support the right of people to make those choices, and we're committed to providing choice in the marketplace.  Market mechanisms will determine how that choice is delivered to customers, but it will be there. Today (May 14) we and several other organizations in the United States, Canada and Australia released a joint statement supporting commercialization of biotechnology traits in wheat.  The need to make available new technology which can make wheat production more efficient is an issue that is increasing in importance around the world.  Agriculture will need to produce more with less, particularly in the area of water use efficiency; we do not believe we should turn our back on traits that can make wheat more resistant to drought or plant diseases.  Rather, our course should be to dialogue with customers about the challenges facing wheat production and find solutions that work for everyone.The full statement is available at www.wheatworld.org/biotech, along with a complete package of information on the petition.  I encourage readers to look them over and come to your own conclusions. Daren CoppockChief Executive OfficerNational Association of Wheat Growers 

    Permalink

  2. Farmer Janet Posted 10:53 pm
    14 May 2009

    NAWG has an interesting definition of "commercial grower." I guess my 200 acres of wheat makes me... what, a hobby farmer or a gardener?Is there any evidence anywhere in the world that a single consumer has asked his/her baker or grocer for a loaf of bread made from RoundUp Ready wheat or genetically altered wheat of any kind? But then, consumers did not ask for RoundUp Ready canola, soybeans or bt corn either. Most still are unaware they are eating them.NAWG and the biotech industry does not want "to dialogue" with their customers. That would imply that the customer had equal input into the conversation.

    Permalink

  3. Daren Coppock Posted 5:43 am
    15 May 2009

    One other way that the market has changed since 2003 - aside from marked shifts in acceptance - is the discussion around preferred traits.  Many of those who support biotech in wheat are not interested in RoundupReady as a trait for wheat.  Herbicide tolerance (and in particular RoundUp Ready) is a distant priority behind more urgent needs like drought tolerance, other abiotic stress tolerance (freeze, heat, etc.), yield improvements and disease and pest resistance.  The fact that most of our current wheat varieties are susceptible to the new Ug99 wheat stem rust pathogen in Africa and the Middle East has put the industry on alert.Janet is right that no consumer asked a grocer for RoundUp Ready anything, nor would they.  The benefits of that technology are conferred at the producer level and they were never tracked all the way to a consumer benefit.  Had the benefit been able to be tracked, it would have manifested to consumers as reduced soil erosion and fuel consumption (from reduced tillage) and more efficient production in terms of dollars per bushel.  It's hard to measure those and quantify the benefit on a product package label.Consumers didn't ask for RoundUp Ready but they sure made their voices heard when commodity prices rose dramatically in 2007-08.  As global agriculture struggles to feed more people with less land and less water in an environmentally sustainable way, biotechnology has an important role to play.  Our commitment to choice ensures that those who don't want to utilize this technology will not be compelled to do so.

    Permalink

  4. Farmer Janet Posted 7:59 am
    15 May 2009

    Mr. Coppock is well aware that the dramatic rise in commodity prices in 2007-08 had absolutely nothing to do with the lack of biotech wheat traits or the farmers' cost of production. The availability of drought-resistant or frost-resistant wheat would not have changed that event which was a result of speculation and a political and economic decision to deplete worldwide grain reserves.I am curious. What is the source of data on the "reduced soil erosion and fuel consumption and more efficent production in terms of dollars per bushel"? Anecdotally, I do not see less tillage or soil erosion in canola production because of biotechnology. I only know of one farmer in a whole county who practices no-till and he has farmed that way for much longer than this technology has been available. Biotechnology has not, at least where I farm, increased the number of acres in no-till or reduced-tillage cropping. Is this assertion based on actual on farm practice or on projected, best case assumptions extrapolated from applying the industry field trial data times the number of acres planted? Who is actually monitoring the number of times a field is sprayed or cultivated, the amount of fuel used, tons of soil eroded? Is soil erosion decreased by the technology or by the Soil Conservation Districts' efforts to plant trees, grass waterways, plant cover crops and educate farmers and a period of relatively benign weather events? Is fuel efficiency increased by biotechnology or by guided steering, better tillage equipment and more efficient diesel engines? Just because two events seem to coincide does not necessarily mean a cause and effect relationship. Type 2 diabetes, obesity and asthma in children increased during the same time period. Does that mean consumption of gm foods is the cause?Disease resistant wheat has been promised to farmers fighting fusarium head blight for years. So far, the only varieties available to combat that disease have come from conventional breeding programs, not genetically modified varieties.If food made with genetically modified crops (or contaminated with gm varieties) is not labelled as containing those products, how do consumers (farmers real customers) have the choice to utilize the technology or not to use it? 

    Permalink

  5. Daren Coppock Posted 8:51 am
    15 May 2009

    Janet - as I mentioned in a previous post, we (NAWG or the industry in general) are not going to dictate how choice is provided to consumers.  One possible option that's already in place is the organic channel, which by definition does not currently include biotech.  Whatever the eventual solution is will be designed between buyers and sellers in the marketplace.  Customer demand will be the primary driver.Biotech certainly can't take credit for all of the improvements in soil erosion, fuel consumption, etc.  New practices and technologies in equipment and conservation as well as cooperative weather certainly play a role.  But biotechnology's role should not be minimized, either; in many parts of the country, farmers have used biotech tools to address challenges unique to no-till resulting in fewer trips over the field, or in the case of corn and cotton they have been able to reduce (though not eliminate) insecticide applications.  If biotech can provide safe and effective tools to combat plant diseases, drought, insects, and stagnation of yield growth - and we believe it can - we owe it to the global population we're trying to feed to utilize those tools.There were a number of contributors to the short supplies and high prices for wheat last year.  Speculation certainly played a role at least in the Chicago exchange, though less so in Minneapolis and Kansas City.  I'm not sure what is meant by a "political and economic decision to deplete worldwide grain reserves" or which government would knowingly make such a decision.  But equally important were crop failures in Australia due to drought, weather problems in other parts of the world, and the fact that farmers who can plant corn, soybeans or wheat are choosing to not plant wheat because net returns are better in the other crops.  Technology has been our pathway to improving efficiency and profitability in the past, and this time is no different.

    Permalink

  6. Byron Posted 8:23 am
    16 May 2009

    I believe that NAWG should take a step back and seriously reconsider their decision to go with biotech wheat. Biotech crops have proved an ugly can of worms that NAWG will likely regret if they go through with it just as many of those involved with biotech corn, canola, cotton, soy and rice do. The problem is that once you go down that path your decision cannot be undone due to the fact that it is near impossible to get transgenes to stop proliferating. You will then find yourselves caught in the web. Here is a report that was prepared for the Canadian Wheat Board that takes a different view.    http://web.archive.org/web/20061018103535/http://www.worc.org/pdfs/WheatCWBEnviroReportJune2003.pdfHere is a series of articles you might look at to let you know what you'll be in for should you proceed: http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=MonsantoHaving closely followed this issue for years I suspect biotech agriculture will turn out to have been just an elaborate and costly gimmick, a gamble designed mainly to enrich the biotech giants. Do you really want to gamble on your wheat?

    Permalink

  7. Erik Hoffner's avatar

    Erik Hoffner Posted 11:12 am
    16 May 2009

    Todd, thanks for the update on GM wheat: last I heard in the article in Orion magazine you were in, the growers in ND had pretty well told Monsanto to forget it already with the GM wheat:http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/171/Seems to me that growers would do well, still, to consider the irrevocable loss of market share once GM wheat were introduced, as Byron said well. Those 'furriners' don't want GMOs. Does the NAWG leadership think that their members can sell all the wheat grown in the US here in the US? And if they can't, is the NAWG leadership ready to buy it all?

    Permalink

  8. Daren Coppock Posted 6:34 am
    22 May 2009

    I mentioned in my May 14 post that NAWG would soon be releasing a document that summarizes the concerns raised in our petition effort and our approaches to address those concerns.  That document is now available on the biotech section of our web site at http://www.wheatworld.org/biotech. The direct link is http://www.wheatworld.org/userfiles/file/05_22_09 Review of Comments - Grower Petition.pdf 

    Permalink

  9. Byron Posted 12:50 pm
    22 May 2009

       A few comments on your PDF.Glyphosate Tolerance (RoundUp Ready)The supposed purpose of RR crops was to eliminate the need for other, more toxic herbicides. However if resistance is necessitating their use then the very reason for RR crops has gone away. You are asking people to climb aboard the tail end of a losing technology. Quote: “Rotating modes of action in herbicides is an important resistance management tool and there was broad support for preserving that approach.” Are you aware that resistances to multiple herbicides is possible? Additionally, what customer knowing that herbicides are being applied directly to their crops just to make things easier for farmers would find that desirable?2)  Concerns of Excessive Market Influence by Private Companies Quote: “ However, the concept of choice will govern here too: if farmers want to continue saving seed as they have been doing, they will be free to do so with the current varieties they are legally using for that purpose. Only those farmers who perceive value from the trait enhancements will be willing to pay the royalties and tech fees for new traits.” Sure they can save seed from non-GM crops, but soon as they cross-pollinate with their GM crops their choice goes out the window.  3) Preserve the Role of Public Breeding ProgramsTo be honest this section sounded like nothing more than a plan for Monsanto to take over these institutions as well. Quote: “NAWG and the National Wheat Improvement Committee (NWIC) are working to ensure that the public breeding programs have a strong role in a world with biotech traits in wheat.... commercializing private traits through public breeding programs may be the only way to ensure a major ongoing role for the public programs.” Then you say, “In order for this to happen, we need to make sure the public system provides an efficient and coherent system for deploying traits. NAWG and NWIC are investigating ways to provide uniformity across the various university technology transfer platforms to make this task simpler for private developers.” Hmm, sounds like a done deal. But I wonder, did you enquire from your member farmers before making this decision?    4)This section is a joke to be frank. First you dismissively claim, “We believe there will be no important differences between biotech and non-biotech wheat from the perspectives of food safety, environmental safety, or end use functionality” thereby ignoring tons of research to the contrary. Again. please see the links I provided above. Then as if to compound the arrogance you say, “Nonetheless, some customers may express preferences for non-biotech wheat products for other reasons.” So as the mouthpiece for these 21,000 farmers (though you are basing your decisions here on your interpretation on what a mere 1/4 of them checked off in your survey) you have decided that they cannot possible have concerns about biotechnology based on food safety, environmental safety, or end use functionality reasons? Next this: “Essential and implied with the commitment to choice is the need to provide for coexistence between varieties with biotech traits and those without, such as organic wheat.” So then who is going to pay for this assured separation of organic and GM wheat? I ask because in Monsanto’s world it’s the organic farmer that is liable if Monsanto’s GM biotech traits get in organic crops:“Examples of Identity Preservation (I.P.) corn crops include seed corn, white, waxy, high oil, high amylose, high lysine and any other corn crop that is grown to meet specialty requirements, including organic and non-genetically enhanced specifications. Growers certifying the I.P. of their crop assume the responsibility and receive the benefit for ensuring that their crop meets mutually agreed contract specifications for purity. The accepted practice with I.P. production is that the I.P. grower implements any necessary processes, e.g. crop isolation, that might be required to meet the I.P. specifications.” http://web.archive.org/web/20050309020517/http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/us_ag/layout/stewardship/marketchoices/growerinfo.asp Then you make an entirely, and I suspect, knowingly false (and breathtakingly arrogant) claim, as far as wheat is concerned, and that‘s what this PDF of yours is talking about. “Achieving a zero tolerance for biotech traits is not possible. In order to make coexistence work, widely accepted and commercially achievable tolerances will need to be established for the low-level presence of biotech traits in non-biotech lots of wheat.” This is completely true as far as the other, already ubiquitous biotech crops are concerned. However since there is no GM wheat at present (unless of course it’s already secretly being tested by Monsanto) it is completely untrue in this context. The way to assure no contamination of GM into non-GM wheat is simply not to grow GM wheat in the first place.5) Other IssuesQuote: “ No one will be forced to consume or produce products that they do not wish to consume or produce. Choice will be available in the marketplace, both for consumers and for producers...” How are you going to provide that choice since labeling of GM products has been successfully fought tooth and nail by Monsanto, the company with 90% or so of the GM market? In fact they say, “Some people believe it’s a right-to-know issue, and all products containing ingredients from GM crops should be labeled as such.... Mandatory labeling of food containing GM ingredients might seem like a no-brainer. However, once you consider the facts, it becomes clear there is no sense in mandatory GM labeling” http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=59&item=163 where’s the free market choice in that?  Another complete falsehood. Quote: “though there is not one single documented incident of food safety or environmental harm attributable to biotechnology in the world over the 13 years it has been used on over 2 billion acres . For this claim to have any traction its makers need to provide proof but there is none to provide.” Then, “Conversely, there is significant evidence that biotechnology has enabled producers – including small holder farmers in developing countries – to become more profitable, reduce resource consumption, and better their lives.” Um yeah, that’s why farmers in India are taking their lives in droves.  Then there is the “Fundraising” section. I’m not sure but I think that wheat farmers have just been insulted. Maybe it’s time for them to form a new NAWG? One that is not in the pocket of the biotech industry.About your Terminator section. Oh brother. Other. Quote: “Crops [sic] who have been content to allow their acres to shrink in hopes that prices will rise have been disappointed in the results.” No proofreader? This document reads like it came straight from a Monsanto PR team. This is anecdotal but I noticed not one use of the word “farmer” in it, yet there were seven mentions of the word “grower”. Note this comment from a Countercurrents.org article: “Once you opt to buy Monsanto seeds, you are no longer a farmer, you're a "grower" -- a serf -- and you must sign a Technology/Stewardship agreement ... In short, you sign your life -- and your livelihood -- over when you become a "grower." And, if you're ever taken to court (and it's likely you could be), and you lose (and it's likely you will) -- you will find you agreed to pay Monsanto and its attorney fees and all related court costs.” http://www.countercurrents.org/samples110509.htmAfter reading your PDF, it’s apparent that NAWG already made its decision. I think that wheat farmers, the actual grassroots of NAWG need to make a decision as well. 

    Permalink

  10. Byron Posted 12:55 pm
    22 May 2009

    Looks like the post process has screwed up the format a bit. Sorry.

    Permalink

  11. Byron Posted 5:37 pm
    22 May 2009

    To further comment. Quote: “though there is not one single documented incident of food safety or environmental harm attributable to biotechnology in the world over the 13 years it has been used on over 2 billion acres. For this claim to have any traction its makers need to provide proof but there is none to provide.”About the former claim: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_GM_Foods:_Health_Risks.About the 2 billion acres, according to Monsanto itself the 2007 worldwide total of their GM crops are 234-242 million acres. http://www.monsanto.com/pdf/pubs/2007/Q32007Acreage.pdf . If you look at http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/39/executivesummary/default.html specifically "Table 1. Global Area of Biotech Crops in 2008: by Country (Million Hectares)" and http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/37/pptslides/Global-Status-Map-2007.pdf you get an actual figure of about 125 million hectares. Then convert from hectares to acres you get a number of a little over 300 million acres, nowhere near 2 billion. Yet just above it it says 2 billion. Now unless I'm missing something I can only conclude that the biotech indistry, for sheer publicity reasons, must be counting the same acres over and over again and implying that they are separate and distinct acres planted when in actuality they are mostly the same acres planted from year to year. Kind of deceptive if you asked me. But then what else is new? 

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement