Daren Coppock’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  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

   

  On A farmer speaks: no to GMO wheat posted 6 months, 1 week ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  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.

  On A farmer speaks: no to GMO wheat posted 6 months, 2 weeks ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  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.

  On A farmer speaks: no to GMO wheat posted 6 months, 2 weeks ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
     
  3. 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.
     
  4. 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 Coppock

  Chief Executive Officer

  National Association of Wheat Growers

   

  On A farmer speaks: no to GMO wheat posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago 11 Responses