The uproar over the discovery of unregistered wheat plants genetically modified to be resistant to glyphosate in an Oregon field shows that the application of genetic engineering to wheat remains highly controversial.
The controversy, and its implications for wheat markets, illustrates that GM research in wheat must proceed only under the most robust precautions and regulatory oversight.
The United States Department of Agriculture and the seed developer, Mon-santo, must uncover how this situation developed and ensure it can’t happen again.
The concern is not safety but market access. So far, there is no evidence the Roundup Ready GM wheat got into the commercial pipeline. Also, although the variety was not advanced for registration, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the safety of Roundup Ready wheat in food and feed use.
Read Also
Proactive approach best bet with looming catastrophes
The Pan-Canadian Action Plan on African swine fever has been developed to avoid the worst case scenario — a total loss ofmarket access.
Despite the lack of danger presented by the situation, Japan, South Korea and the European Union all implemented restrictions on importing U.S. wheat and are testing shipments for GM content.
It is this market reaction that makes farmers concerned about the progress of GM wheat research.
Many Canadian and American farmers complain about the lagging profitability of wheat compared to other crops. They know GM technology could raise yields and deliver traits to improve the crop’s profitability.
However, most North American wheat is exported and key markets don’t want GM wheat. These market access concerns prompted Monsanto and other breeders to drop GM wheat research in 2005.
But by 2009, a coalition of grower groups in the U.S., Canada and Australia, along with the North American Millers Association, urged that GM wheat breeding be revived and proceed in a co-ordinated manner to avoid market disruption.
Companies and government agencies restarted GM wheat research, but have yet to produce a registered GM wheat.
But if there were one, several important consuming countries would likely reject it.
Although the area of GM crops — soybeans, corn, canola, cotton — has expanded greatly in the last eight years, the attitude against GM food of key buyers, such as the European Union, Japan and South Korea, has not changed.
Any hope of building consumer confidence is shaken by incidents such as the Oregon situation.
Monsanto seems baffled.
GM trials were not conducted at the site or nearby. Neither seed left in the soil nor wheat pollen flow produce a reasonable explanation for the rogue GM plants.
Monsanto suggests that “accidental or purposeful mixing of seed” is the most likely source. It does not suspect the farmer was at fault.
It is appalling that, even after the market disruptions caused by StarLink corn in the U.S. and Triffid flax in Canada, the breeding industry seems incapable of preventing the production of unapproved varieties.
The closing down of the research was rigorous, said Monsanto. Most of the seed was destroyed, some was sent to a USDA facility and Monsanto held on to some. Yet somehow, Roundup Ready wheat wound up in the Oregon field. Luckily, it did not get into the commercial supply.
But it shows that GM wheat needs better tracking of seed supplies during research today and in the future when developing the segregation systems that will be needed if GM wheat is ever approved.
We fear that no segregation system will be successful so long as important buyers hold to zero or near zero tolerance of GM content in the grain they buy.
Until these tracing, segregation and buyer tolerance problems are solved, GM wheat will remain a conundrum: a solution to lagging yields and profitability but a risk that could destroy market access.
