Association Perspectives:

Communication, Education Imperative as Biotech Wheat Nears Reality

No genetically modified or biotech wheat is expected in the commercial marketplace for at least the next two to four years, but already, it is the hottest issue on the burner for the U.S. wheat industry.

If and when there will be GMO wheat from America is the leading question for U.S. wheat officials and spokes-people overseas, and it is sure to be the top issue discussed when overseas trade teams consisting of wheat buyers and users blanket wheat-producing states this summer to visit with producers and industry representatives.

News coverage also is mounting, with stories by at least four international wire services, continuing reports in agricultural trade publications and stories in the world’s most respected newspapers, including a recent front page story in the Washington Post.  Two legitimate questions, almost always asked by reporters, are: why is this particular development in biotechnology generating so much interest, and what is being done about it?

The interest in the prospect of biotech wheat carries over naturally from the controversy generated by biotech soybeans and corn, and heightened by the StarLink incident. The profile of wheat is raised further by the fact that is the primary food grain today, providing direct sustenance to people around the globe. Wheat is more sensitive to the biotech issue as well since the crop is more dependant upon exports than other crops.  About half of U.S. wheat is exported, compared to about one third of the U.S. soybean crop and one quarter of the U.S. corn crop. Disconcerting too for some is the notion of manipulating the “grandfather of food grains” that goes back thousands of years before Christ—although it should be pointed out that wheat and other crops have been manipulated genetically since the early days of plant life anyway, through natural evolution and traditional or classical plant breeding.

Wheat has been, is, and will continue to be important to the lives of billions of people, so perhaps it would be surprising if there wasn’t a global discussion on the role of biotechnology in wheat.

Monsanto, likely to be the first in the marketplace to have a biotech product available through Roundup Ready wheat, has agreed to requests by the U.S. wheat industry to develop an “identity preserved” grain handling system prior to commercialization, and will set up an advisory committee for consultation, review and critique of that system. 

The U.S. wheat industry recognizes, however, that once biotech wheat is on the market, commercial agriculture cannot meet “zero tolerance” requirements, no matter how well a grain handling system is designed and managed. U.S. Wheat Associates (USW) and the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) therefore support a reasonable threshold level for co-mingling of biotech wheat and nonbio-tech wheat.

Above all, the U.S. wheat industry has committed itself absolutely to the principle that customers’ needs and preferences are the most important consideration. The key now is communication.  The wheat industry along with Monsanto and other biotech developers need to listen to the concerns of buyers, domestically as well as overseas, and provide what they want. Regular dialogue is needed too among producers, grain handlers, biotech providers, and federal grain officials about how biotech wheat—if and when it is commercially released—may be best managed and handled for customer assurance.

What Is, and Isn’t, Biotech
Education is important too, about what biotechnology is and isn’t. For example, AgriPro Wheat will release two new spring wheat varieties in 2002 geared for the Clearfield Production System, trademarked formerly through American Cyanamid, now BASF. Clearfield wheat varieties have herbicide (imazamox) tolerance that will enable season-long, broad-spectrum control of numerous weeds, including wild oats and foxtail. IMI-tolerant varieties are being developed through conventional breeding methods. The different technologies being used to develop new wheat varieties may be difficult for some overseas wheat buyers and members of the media to understand, however.  Thus, perhaps now more than ever before is it imperative for the wheat industry to have proactive communication and education channels flowing back and forth with all concerned, including researchers, biotech developers, grain handlers, and most important of all, U.S. wheat customers.

These channels are already well underway.  USW, NAWG, and the wheat industry’s Wheat Export Trade Education Committee (WETEC) have a joint biotechnology committee in place that is formulating positions and developing strategies to address the various facets of the biotech issue.  In addition to working with Monsanto on the release of Roundup Ready wheat, the wheat biotech committee plans to involve other life science companies that have an interest in IP systems for their future biotech wheats.

The wheat biotech committee is also active in working with wheat customers on the issue.  For example, On April 1, 2001, the Japanese implemented a 5% biotech content tolerance on food labels. Soon after, members of the committee traveled to Japan, to discuss the biotech issue directly with Japanese customers, who are key users of U.S. spring wheat.

Despite the new-age change that biotechnology promises to bring to the wheat industry, its commercial adoption and acceptance will ultimately be guided by an old-age business adage—that the customer is always right.

“Association Perspectives” represents the views of the North Dakota Grain Growers Association, South Dakota Wheat Inc., and the Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers, which publishes Prairie Grains along with the Minnesota Wheat Research and Promotion Council.