-
9 Hard Red Spring Wheat at a Genetic Crossroad: Rural Prosperity or Corporate Hegemony?
- University of Wisconsin Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
9 Hard Red Spring Wheat at a Genetic Crossroad Rural Prosperity or Corporate Hegemony? R. Dennis Olson No man qualifies as a statesman who is entirely ignorant on the problems of wheat. Socrates Overview Shortly after Monsanto submitted its 2002 applications to deregulate its Roundup Ready hard red spring wheat in both the United States and Canada, the company publicly pledged that it would not commercially release the world’s first strain of genetically engineered wheat until several conditions were met. First, Monsanto pledged to gain market acceptance for genetically engineered wheat by convincing major international wheat buyers to agree to purchase it. Second, regulatory agencies in the United States and Canada would have to approve Monsanto’s genetically engineered wheat simultaneously, so as not to give one country a market advantage over the other. Third, Monsanto pledged to work with the wheat industry and the regulatory agencies to establish “appropriate” contami150 nation thresholds.1 And finally, Monsanto committed to work with the wheat industry and the regulatory agencies to resolve unanswered questions about the costs of segregation and to address outstanding agronomic stewardship concerns (Monsanto Canada 2003). By March of 2004 Monsanto had failed to meet virtually all these self-imposed conditions, but nevertheless considered moving ahead with seeking approval of its genetically engineered wheat only in the United States, in direct contradiction to its public commitments (Reuters 2004a). After strong resistance to this move from the U.S. wheat industry, Monsanto first announced, on May 10, 2004, that it would discontinue funding for all research on genetically engineered wheat (Monsanto 2004). Then, on June 18, 2004, Monsanto announced that it was withdrawing its pending applications for regulatory approval of the genetically engineered wheat from all agencies from around the world except for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Reuters 2004b). This stunning retreat by a major biotechnology company from the marketing of a major biotech crop, even if it proves only temporary , represents an historical bellwether in the ongoing controversy over the safety of biotech crops for humans, biodiversity and rural economies. The commercial release of genetically engineered wheat would have had a profound effect on farmers in North America, who played a pivotal role in pressuring Monsanto to abandon commercialization of genetically engineered wheat. Recent economic projections indicate that the commercial release of genetically engineered wheat would have caused a devastating collapse in prices that farmers get for their wheat. This was the primary reason why leaders within the North American wheat industry stubbornly questioned and effectively resisted Monsanto’s bid to commercialize its genetically engineered wheat variety. This loss of farm income would have occurred because most major wheat importers have vowed not to buy genetically engineered wheat—because contamination of native wheat by genetically engineered wheat is inevitable—and the resulting loss of these export markets would have relegated North American wheat farmers to the role of supplier of last resort. Unlike genetically engineered corn and soybeans—which are used mostly for animal feed— genetically engineered wheat would have gone directly into the human food system. This would have likely meant even stronger consumer resistance to foods contaminated with genetically engineered wheat. The lesson of Monsanto’s historic retreat is that policy makers the world over must carefully weigh the socioeconomic and agronomic ramifications of Hard Red Spring Wheat 151 [44.200.210.43] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 13:59 GMT) this new food crop before commercially and irretrievably releasing genetically engineered crops into farm fields and food distribution systems. “Aristocrat” of Wheat at the Center of Genetic Engineering Controversy Hard red spring wheat “stands out as the aristocrat of wheat for baking bread.” It has the highest protein content of all U.S. wheat varieties and therefore has greater gluten content. Many flour mills—both in the United States and abroad—desire this characteristic so they can blend hard red spring wheat with lower-protein wheat varieties to increase the gluten content in the flour that they mill. In the United States, hard red spring (HRS) wheat is grown primarily in four states: North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Minnesota (North Dakota Wheat Commission 2002a). It also grows on the Great Plains provinces of Canada. In the winter of 2001, the North Dakota House of Representatives, citing the potential loss of wheat exports resulting from consumer rejection of genetically engineered foods, passed a temporary ban on the commercial introduction of genetically engineered wheat—a shot across the bow of the...