Association Perspective

Biotech Challenges Traditional Mantra:

“This is Wheat Country, and It Will Always Be Wheat Country”

I live and farm near Valley City, in a county that historically was one of the top producing spring wheat and malting barley counties in the nation, and I have spent much of my time the past ten years as an advocate for these crops and the producers who grew them, both locally and nationally.

Early in my farming career, we tried growing other crops such as corn and soybeans. But we eventually dropped them, mostly because of production problems such as weed control, insects, and disease, all of which pushed the cost of production too high.

I remember sitting at the table when my dad, although an adventurous man willing to try something new in the field, would boldly proclaim after reviewing the outcomes of these other crops: “This is wheat country, and it will always be wheat country.”

At the time, he could not have known how such technology advancement would change our crop production landscape.  But today Barnes County plants more acres of soybeans than wheat, more acres of corn than barley, and is one of the largest soybean producing counties in the nation. 

Research in those crops led to better yields, shorter maturities, and other improvements, but it was not until we could make use of the current biotech hybrids/varieties that acreage in our area skyrocketed. Why? Because soybeans and corn became more profitable and easier to raise, with a lower per unit cost of production.

Specifically, weed control was the greatest challenge in soybean production before biotech, often costing over $30 per acre, with only marginal weed control and obvious crop injury. Today we have weed free fields while spending less that $15/acre on chemical and tech fees.

Corn chemical cost could easily be over $40/acre while still getting poor control of weeds and insects.  This year we spent under $6 on chemical plus tech fees.  No weeds, no corn borer.

Wheat, on the other hand, has struggled to keep pace.  We – the Upper Great Plains – will always be the place to come for high quality wheat, but without the use of biotechnology to solve some of our quality problems, create new use opportunities, and lower our per unit cost of production to maintain competitiveness, wheat will struggle to hold its place at the top of our crop acreage mix.  The acreage trends already are an indication of that.

As new traits such as drought, cold, and salt tolerance, nutrient fixing, disease, and insect resistance, not to mention new pesticide tolerant traits, we will see crops such as corn and soybeans continue to move north and west across spring wheat country all the way to Calgary and the Rocky Mountains.

The thing of it is, many of these trait opportunities could be available in wheat as well. In fact, I believe that in many instances, wheat is the crop with the greatest opportunity to deliver true consumer health and environmental benefits.

On my farm this past year we lost 30-40% of our yield potential due to scab and will take another 5-10% loss in price.  These and other problems and inputs resulted in a per bushel cost of production of over $4, or about 75 cents over current market value.  Solve my scab and herbicide cost problems with genetic glyphosate and scab resistant traits and all of a sudden my per unit cost goes to about $2.30, about a dollar per bushel gain .  Now a $30 per acre loss becomes a $70 per acre gain. I am much more likely to be the lowest cost producer of a high quality product, and my wheat becomes easier to sell, with less concern about dockage and vomitoxin.

Unfortunately, the anti-technology crowd organized their focus around stopping these opportunities in wheat (even though most wheat foods sold in grocery stores today contain biotech ingredients). Thanks to a minority of opposition, we have lost hundreds of millions of dollars worth of opportunity in the wheat production industry.

This technology, without a doubt, still offers the best opportunity ever to feed more hungry people, improve the environment, improve human health and stabilize the economics of food production than any other options out there today.

I have several points for the various shareholders of the wheat industry to consider:

To the university research and extension community: it is important that you listen to what the industry is saying from the producer to the consumer, then whole-heartedly engage in solving the problems they bring to you, be creative, be open-minded, and work as a team to evaluate, research and educate, and create interest about the vastness of this technology opportunity.  You must be proactive and quick to respond to needs of the industry, and embrace public-private collaboration to develop new research and trait opportunity.  You must also be the first line of upholding a standard of credibility that never disrupts the growth of the technology.

To the private researchers and companies: listen to the needs and concerns of the industry and the universities, have a close dialogue with producers and consumers, and everyone in between. Be open to solutions to problems associated with taking products to market in the interest of developing a trust relationship with all parties. Continue to work with public research as a way to expedite safe and credible technology. 

To the grain processors, millers and bakers: as part of this industry, you have a responsibility to work with the wheat industry to prepare your plants, processes, procurement,  and your customers for the coming of this technology and encourage them to dialogue with others in the industry to find solutions to logistics and marketing challenges.  Also, it is important that you let your needs be known to technology developers so they can find ways to compliment your business through biotech research.

To grain buyers from other parts of the world: You need to educate your consumers and shareholders about the potential benefits of this technology to solve existing food quality and supply problems. Make sure that education is based on credible scientific fact and research, and be diligent to discourage the type of confusion and deception that has already caused starvation while safe healthy biotech derived food was literally within arms reach.  Ask our industry for help when needed to get this message to your people.

To those who question biotechnology: Be open-minded and weigh all the evidence in a balanced, objective manner, as we supporters must also do. Maintain a dialogue and participate in the solution development process. Understand the opportunities that have come about, and will continue to come about, for organic and conventional markets because of biotech.

To the media:  Be fair, unbiased, be available, and take the time to be educated and educate about the issues. Your part is critical in objectively disseminating awareness and information about this technology. A lot of responsibility is on your shoulders as to the success or failure of this evolving technology. Many have compared the growth in biotechnology to the growth of the computer and cell phone technology of the last 20 years and believe the future is equally as promising.  If there are questions and unwarranted fears, then address them.  We have nothing to fear from seeking the facts.

To growers: Seek to understand the facts and opportunities that are available and that may arise from biotech crops, as well as conventional and organic crops. Work to help educate yourselves and other growers, the media, lawmakers, processors, and consumers about this technology.  

We all have to share in the educational process to teach consumers and key decision-makers about credible scientific evidence of the issues of safety, environmental impact, and potential health and hunger benefits.  This we should do as a responsibility to the well-being of God’s earth and his people.  To that end, we would do well to heed the words of Norman Borlaug, Nobel Peace Laureate and “Father of the Green Revolution.”  The following is from an essay written by Borlaug in 2003 for the Wall Street Journal, “Science Vs. Hysteria,” which can be found in its entirety online at www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2003/bio030122.html.

 # # #

Dr. Norman Borlaug:

“Although there have always been those in society who resist change, the intensity of the attacks against GM crops from some quarters is unprecedented and, in certain cases, even surprising, given the potential environmental benefits that such technology can bring by reducing the use of pesticides. Genetic engineering of crops -- plant breeding at the molecular level -- is not some kind of witchcraft, but rather the progressive harnessing of the forces of nature to the benefit of feeding the human race. The idea that a new technology should be barred until proven conclusively that it can do no harm is unrealistic and unwise. Scientific advance always involves some risk of unintended outcomes. Indeed, “zero biological risk” is not even attainable.

If low-income, food-deficit nations -- which desperately need access to the benefits of science and technology -- are being advised by governments and pressure groups in privileged nations to reject biotechnology, based on ideologically inspired pseudo-science, there is reason for serious concern. Of course, proper safeguards need to be put in place in Africa and elsewhere to regulate biotechnology research and the release of GM products. But to attempt to deny such benefits would be unconscionable.

Current GM crop varieties that help to control insects and weeds are lowering production costs and increasing harvests -- a great potential benefit to all Third World farmers. Future GM products are likely to carry traits that will improve nutrition and health. All of these technologies have more benefits to offer poor farmers and consumers than rich ones.

The needless confrontation of consumers against the use of transgenic crop technology in Europe and elsewhere might have been avoided had more people received a better education in biological science. This educational gap -- which has resulted in a growing and worrisome ignorance about the challenges and complexities of agricultural and food systems -- needs to be addressed without delay. Privileged societies have the luxury of adopting a very low-risk position on the GM crops issue, even if this action later turns out to be unnecessary. But the vast majority of humankind does not have such a luxury, and certainly not the hungry victims of wars, natural disasters, and economic crises.

Without adequate food supplies at affordable prices, we cannot expect world health, prosperity, and peace. Responsible biotechnology is not the enemy; starvation is.