Archives
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010

December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009

December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008

December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007

December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006

December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005

December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004

Biotech Wheat Plan Rejection Raises Concerns

Capital Press
November 10, 2004
By SCOTT A. YATES

Email this page

SPOKANE – Rejection of a document aimed at bringing biotech traits to the wheat industry has Duane Grant wondering if U.S. Wheat Associates has the will to build acceptance for the technology.

Biotech point man for the National Association of Wheat Growers, the Rupert, Idaho, farmer also is a member of the Wheat Industry Joint Biotech Committee. He is one of the authors of “The Road Forward: A Strategy for Commercializing Biotech Traits in Wheat While Preserving and Expanding Markets.”

The action plan was adopted as policy by NAWG and the Wheat Export Trade and Education Committee. But USW board members, who represent the export arm of the American wheat grower, rejected the document by a wide margin.

The “Road Forward” originally began as a strategy to help Monsanto bring Roundup Ready wheat to the market. When the company indefinitely suspended its introduction, the joint biotech committee reshaped it to respond to biotechnology advances in general.

The long-range plan is clearly an endorsement for bringing biotech developed traits in wheat to the market.

“Biotechnology is the latest tool in the technological toolbox, and most wheat producers are anxious to use it to improve their products and their profitability,” states a draft of the document.

The policy emphasizes the protection of domestic and export markets and most of the goals listed involve some element of education aimed at specific areas of the wheat/food chain complex.

One objective calls for in-depth information tailored to wheat buyers and traders to answer concerns and address myths perpetuated by biotech opponents. Another objective targets non-U.S. producers, particular in Canada, to work toward simultaneous commercialization of the first biotech trait in both countries.

Grant is clearly upset by USW’s rejection of the “Road Forward” calling it “symptomatic of a lack of commitment on the part of the U.S. Wheat Board” for biotech wheat. He claims the vote is out of step with the growers who contribute funds that support the export organization.

Referring to NAWG’s endorsement of the “Road Forward,” Grant said it’s amazing two boards representing the same people can come to two diametrically opposed positions.

“At the end of the day, I think where we find ourselves as a wheat industry is divided and therefore, sidelined on this technology,” he said.

At a recent USW meeting in Denver, Idaho was one of the few states that voted in favor of adopting the “Road Forward.” Mark Darington, chairman of the Idaho Wheat Commission, cast the affirmative vote. He’s hopeful the policy can be fine-tuned and approved when the group meets again in Reno, Nev., in February.

Dan Debuff, a Montana grower and USW-appointed member of the Wheat Industry Joint Biotech Committee, was the catalyst behind the document’s rejection. In an e-mail to the board he said if the policy was approved, it would take away the USW’s supervision of the issue and give it to a committee.

“When a committee has any authority above the boards it represents, I believe it is no longer a committee but becomes an entity of its own,” he wrote.

Jerry McReynolds, president of the Kansas Association of Wheat Growers, disagrees. He also serves on the joint biotech committee. He said Debuff’s comments were irresponsible.

“Since when does a committee take any authority away from any board,” he said, calling it ridiculous to even suggest such a thing

“All this document does is break it down on who is going to do what, at what time, given specific circumstances,” he said, adding that he believes the USW board’s “no” vote was an effort to stifle progress over the issue.

“I think it is very unfortunate that this action leaves the wheat industry without a coordinated plan to address some of the concerns and issues that exist,” he said.

Nelson Denlinger, vice president of government programs and USW staff adviser to the joint biotech committee, disputes that characterization. He said the board action voting down the “Road Forward” does not rule out continuing to work positively on biotech acceptance.

He said opposition stemmed from concerns around governance, costs, priorities and a structure the board viewed as unnecessary.

“The comments by board members seemed to indicate that they have largely placed their trust in our staff to manage the issue without a new layer of oversight,” Denlinger said.

Keith Kisling, an Oklahoma grower and chairman of U.S. Wheat Associates, said the organization isn’t against biotech wheat. During visits to four Asian countries last May, Kisling said he and USW staff gave buyers the message to expect the technology in the future.

Instead of shaking their head no, as they have in the past, Kisling said buyers understood.

“They know it is on its way,” he said.

Scott Yates is based in Spokane, Wash. His e-mail address is cpspokane@comcast.net.

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for research and educational purposes.