|
June 17, 2009
Source:
International Center for Trade
and Sustainable Development (ICTSD)
BRIDGES Weekly
Trade News Digest
Farmers associations and
environmental groups are rekindling the debate about whether to
support research for genetically modified (GM) wheat. A group of
nine wheat organisations in the US, Canada, and Australia - the
world’s largest wheat exporters - issued a statement on 15 May
calling for “the synchronized introduction of biotech wheat.”
Two weeks later, 15 groups opposing GM wheat issued a response
offering point-by-point counterarguments against the crop’s
introduction.
The GM supporters’ statement revived a debate many believed had
run its course. In 2004, biotech company Monsanto shelved plans
to develop an herbicide-resistant strain of GM wheat after
hearing the concerns of farmers, buyers, and exporters, who
feared such a seed would cause them to lose export markets.
This concern has not changed in the past five years. Many
consumers, particularly in Europe and Asia, are apprehensive
about eating genetically modified food. Six European countries
have now invoked national bans on the cultivation of a GM maize
variety produced by Monsanto, despite the EU’s approval of the
crop (see
Bridges Weekly, 22 April 2009). Opponents cite this as a
principal reason for prohibiting the introduction of GM wheat.
But GM proponents say this is a challenge worth pursuing. “If
the consumer perceives that the benefit is just for the producer
or worse still, just for some big company that’s making a profit
out of it, why would they want to adopt it?” Robert Henry,
director of the Center for Plant Conservation Genetics, told
Reuters. “They really need to be convinced there’s some benefit
for the environment from a point of view of their own health.”
Proponents hope to build this support by highlighting the crop’s
unique characteristics. According to their statement, GM wheat
would offer increased insect and disease resistance and improved
tolerance of extreme weather, both of which contribute to higher
crop yields. The crop could also be designed for consumption by
people with wheat intolerance.
But critics argue that GM wheat offers no agronomic improvement
other than easier application of pesticides, according to their
statement. Additionally, they suggest that “there is no evidence
to substantiate the claim that GE [genetically engineered] crop
varieties increase yields.”
The GM wheat debate is complicated by the ease with which seeds
move through the environment. When wheat seeds are carried by
the wind, they can cross-pollinate with other seeds. “If
[genetically engineered] wheat is released commercially,
contamination would be inevitable and markets would view all
wheat produced from these areas as GE unless proven to be
non-GE,” the opponent groups stated. Some farmers would
unwittingly become subject to gene patent restrictions and
labelling requirements.
”Once you introduce it, it’s over and it’s over and it’s over
and it all becomes GMO just like we now have in canola,”
Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser told the Canadian Press.
Monsanto sued Schmeiser in 1998 for using the company’s
genetically modified seeds without a license. Schmeiser claimed
that the seeds could have blown over from a neighbouring field.
Even if proponents build the necessary political support for GM
wheat research, the new crop would not be introduced for some
time. Supporters estimate that it could take six to eight years
for new biotech wheat crops to be ready for commercial
introduction.
ICTSD reporting; “GMO wheat acceptance hinges on public
benefit,” REUTERS, 7 June 2009; “Debate on growing GM wheat
rises again, but experts say issues are the same,” THE CANADIAN
PRESS, 6 June 2009. |
|
