Monsanto’s withdrawal from its Roundup Ready wheat project will trigger a broader shift away from agriculture research, says an agricultural economist.
When the company announced it was backing away from what is “conservatively estimated” to be a $50 million US endeavour, it sent a strong message to the investment community, said Peter Phillips, director of the college of biotechnology at the University of Saskatchewan.
“I don’t think it’s a disaster in the short term, but it’s one more signal that maybe agriculture isn’t where you should put your money if you’re a private investor.”
Read Also
StatCan stands by its model-based crop forecast
Statistics Canada’s model-based production estimates are under scrutiny, but agency says it is confident in the results.
The long-term ramifications of the decision will be fewer private sector dollars, especially for wheat research, which could “significantly impact” the location and cost of global wheat production.
“We may see a small but cumulative effect on the competitiveness of parts of our agrifood industry,” he said.
Rene Van Acker, associate professor of crop management at the University of Manitoba, called Phillips’ comments fear-mongering.
“Does he think his ideas through? What? We go forward with this instead and that’s a better idea?”
He said biotechnology needs controls. It’s a new science that requires an adjustment period, which is happening now. But that doesn’t mean the end of biotechnology.
“It’s not a problem. Ag research will continue on. The biotech industry will continue on. The world will continue to turn,” said Van Acker, who is exploring with other researchers the fate of transgenes in the environment.
Phillips contends wheat had not been a primary target of private investment for many years, but excitement over the potential for biotech applications changed that, triggering a lot of “me too” type research from non-biotech firms.
“(Monsanto’s decision) has the potential to make it somewhat less attractive for the non-biotech companies to invest heavily in some of the related technologies.”
It also sets a new standard by which future research projects will be judged. It’s no longer good enough to create a product that will only benefit growers. It has to meet expectations all the way down the line. People are demanding a complete cost-benefit analysis and that may be an unrealistic expectation.
“The notion that only technologies that are unambiguously positive for everyone should enter the market is a very high test for technological change,” Phillipssaid.
Van Acker disagreed.
“So what the consumer wants doesn’t matter?”
He said it’s appropriate all players in the supply chain be consulted, especially consumers. Grain companies and millers also have valid concerns about the costs of segregation and the possible liability issues associated with GM contamination.
He said he is not an anti-biotech campaigner, referring to himself and his fellow researchers as pro-common sense.
“I don’t think (Monsanto’s decision) is going to shut down biotechnology at all. It’s just too huge. There’s just too much potential in it.”
But Phillips said GM wheat appears to be heading in the same direction as GM flax, potatoes and tomatoes, which have all been withdrawn from the market.
Biotech companies are going to funnel investment dollars toward products like GM corn, soybeans, canola and cotton that already have established markets or will shift away from agriculture biotechnology altogether, focusing instead on developing biotech medicines where there is more money and less controversy.
“Wheat has now shifted from being in the top four or five attractive areas to a grey area,” he said.
