MONSANTO’S announcement May 10 that it has deferred efforts to develop Roundup Ready wheat released a flood of emotion, primarily relief, across Canada.
Given the objections to the wheat on the grounds of market acceptance, health concerns, potential gene spread and herbicide resistance concerns, among others, Monsanto executive vice-president Carl Casale gave classic understatement when he allowed that “business opportunities with Roundy Ready spring wheat are less attractive relative to Monsanto’s other commercial priorities.”
Agricultural and environmental groups that have been most vocal in opposition to RR wheat were quick to claim victory, and they did play an important and informative role in the debate. Indeed, few agricultural issues have ever galvanized so many or generated as much farm group agreement as rejection of GM wheat.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
We too applaud the news and welcome this reprieve for farmers from a worrisome development on the national and international stage.
In the face of deep opposition, the company is wise to cut its losses on a venture with slim hope of widespread acceptance given today’s consumer concerns and industry limitations.
Monsanto says it will instead focus on research and development in oilseeds, corn and cotton, where there are already demonstrated benefits in existing GM varieties and greater acceptance from international buyers and consumers.
In a News release
news, Casale said a 25 percent decline since 1997 in the number of acres planted to spring wheat in the United States and Canada was one reason RR wheat seemed less attractive.
That’s the same reason wheat variety research in general hasn’t kept pace with other crops, and it’s an issue that deserves some attention.
However, wheat researchers can take a lesson from the Monsanto experience that any GM varieties with perceived health benefits in addition to agronomic advantages are more likely to gain public acceptance.
For its part, Monsanto has called a halt to wheat research and will divert those resources to other projects. But it hasn’t closed the door on wheat: “We will continue to monitor the wheat industry’s desire for crop improvements, via breeding and biotechnology, to determine if and when it might be practical to move forward with a biotech wheat product.”
Some may see that as a threat that the GM wheat controversy will arise again. But the optimists among us may read it as more of a promise to explore the potential benefits of biotechnology that may reveal themselves in the future. There is worth in the exploration.
As the world learns more about biotechnology, there may come a time for GM wheat, whether it is related to herbicide tolerance or another trait more popular with wheat buyers.
In the meantime, Canadian farmers celebrate Monsanto’s deferral as the correct course of action.
