|
Biotech resolution stirs controversy
By Larry Dreiling A week of meetings by the two national wheat organizations concluded here Jan. 25 with controversy over a biotechnology resolution. Earlier in the week, the joint biotechnology committee of U.S. wheat Associates and the National Association of wheat Growers unanimously passed two resolutions. The first called for the groups to meet with the counterparts from Australia and Canada to develop a timeline for the simultaneous release and commercialization of biotech wheat. The second called for the identification of trait developers and the initiation of dialogue to encourage the research, development and commercialization of biotech wheat. The USWA board had already concluded their meetings when the biotech group met and the biotech committee expected them to pass the resolution. The NAWG board had not yet met and it was at that meeting that opposition to the second resolution aired. "There are people at U.S. wheat who might object to this resolution," Leonard Schock, USWA chairman, told the NAWG board. "I might suggest you add the word 'eventual' prior to the word commercialization." NAWG board members bristled at Schock's comments. "There are producers all over the country that need the traits biotech offers," said Joe Kejr, president of the Kansas Association of wheat Growers. "We need to get moving here. I want that line in the sand. "At some point we have to re-engage the industry. What is 'eventual'? Six months? Pretty soon, it will be a year, then two years, then five years. When is this going to stop?" For his part, biotechnology committee chairman Darrell Hanavan apologized to the NAWG board that this proposal could not be discussed and passed by both boards at the same time. He asked the officers to permit votes of the boards to be held during the joint session. "I admit we really aren't doing this right by not issuing a resolution at the same time," said Hanavan, who as executive director of Colorado Wheat, sees his state's wheat checkoff and member groups hold nothing but joint meetings. "At some point we have to draw a line here and get the technology companies out there to develop these products." The NAWG board then passed the resolution unanimously without amendments. Following the board meeting, NAWG board members were willing to talk about the USWA position, but only under anonymity. "We've been screwing around with the Japanese over bringing our beef in there for what, three years now over one mad cow? Now we're seeing the Japanese people are beginning to complain their food prices are too high, a lot of it because of their government's sanctions policies." Another NAWG board member said USWA should take a larger view. "We have to start thinking about the mouths that need to be fed around the world and stop putting our pride or politics before people. We have identified the wheat genome and we need to let our scientists and scientists all over the world have at it so we can end hunger in this world. "We know the gene that resists fusarium to benefit farmers in the northern Prairie and Canada. We know the gene that can fight rust on the Great Plains, now that there's moisture you may need that. We know the gene for salt resistance than can benefit Australia. There should be a global look at introducing these traits, not just because we're losing wheat acreage in this country, but because we can increase yields and feed the world." Earlier, at the NAWG-USWA Biotechnology Committee meeting, a coalition was building between the grower groups along with the North American Millers Association and the American Bakers Association on common ground for use of genetically enhanced wheat. The committee hosted two speakers, Betsy Faga, president of the millers' group and Lee Sanders, senior vice president for government relations and public affairs for the bakers' group. Both speakers lauded the growers for their position statement on biotechnology and offered their support for development of worthwhile genetics, such as a fusarium-resistant variety now being developed by Syngenta, which can offer benefits to millers and bakers, such as reduction in vomitoxin in stored wheat. "We support biotechnology," Faga said. "It improves the quality and efficiency of delivery of product. In terms of a regulatory framework, we support labeling products as made from biotech products only when an allergy is found or when it substantially changes the nutritional content of the product." Added Sanders: "The results of our surveys indicate acceptance of biotech products. About the only group that did not like biotech were women from high-income areas of California and Florida. They had higher doubts," Expressing confidence in the U.S. food system and telling the millers and bakers reps to do likewise was Al Skogen, a Valley City, N.D. producer. "There's some serious money being spent out there trying to ruin our reputation, specifically interests from Japan and the E.U.," Skogen said. "They said we killed people with e.Coli and our land with chemicals. Well, they haven't done much better with mad cow and foot and mouth disease. "In comparison, our system's worked perfect. When we had a biotech rice incident last year and we were open about it. Still, they all said stop production. Then there are people who say organic is the way to go. Then look what happened to poisoned organic lettuce. They didn't say stop eating that." Sanders responded, saying: "What's needed is a high degree of confidence of segregation of products. That's different than identity preservation. That's what is needed to satisfy the organic industry." Added NAWG CEO Daren Coppock, "The longer we wait (for biotech wheat) the more of a hole were going to be in. The day is coming when producers will grow more crops other than wheat because of biotech traits. We are hearing from product manufacturers who use wheat products and they are noting the decline in wheat acreage. That means they are beginning to see a supply problem, and we can't have that in this country." The biotechnology committee is expected to present their resolutions to the USWA board at the Commodity Classic at Tampa, Fla., in March.
0 None None Date: 2/15/07
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2008. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
