E-mail this article to
yourself or a friend.
Enter address:





home

OTA might 'ratchet' up pressure to oppose biotech wheat

by Robert Schubert
CropChoice editor

(Wednesday, May 28, 2003 -- CropChoice commentary) -- The Organic Trade Association should follow the lead of the Canadian Wheat Board, which this week requested that Monsanto refrain from selling wheat genetically engineered to resist glyphosate (sold as Roundup), even if the Canadian government approves the company's application to sell the seed to farmers.

Monsanto declined the request, but at least the CWB effort was there (story and news release below).

The Organic Trade Association, which held its annual convention earlier this month in Austin, Texas, hasn't been out front enough in opposing GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in general or Roundup Ready wheat in particular as some farmers and consumers would like. The OTA line continues to be that because organic standards are based on production, not purity, farmers may not deliberately apply a synthetic pesticide or fertilizer (unless it's approved under the organic standards) or sow a genetically engineered seed. But they won't necessarily lose their certification if pesticides or foreign genes end up on their crops or in their soil (last year's commentary available below).

Consumers should not equate the organic label with purity, says Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of OTA. It's for that reason that member companies are discouraged from labeling their products "pesticide free" or "GMO-free."

While the OTA has diligently commented to various federal government agencies on what it regards as the environmental, agronomic and market risks associated with transgenic crops and the need to, at the very least, label them, DiMatteo concedes that her organization has not flung itself completely into the battle over biotech: "That's not our role. We do support organizations applying pressure."

But the OTA position just might change in light of a survey released by the Organic Farming Research Foundation on May 14, the first day of the organic industry convention. It claims to show the " first direct financial and related operational impacts associated with the threat of contamination by genetically modified organisms." (See release below).

Pay particular attention to the last line of the following excerpt from "Sustaining Organic Farms in a Changing Organic Marketplace."

  • "17% of survey respondents indicated that they have had GMO testing conducted on some portion of their organic farm seed, inputs or farm products. 11% of those that had GMO testing conducted indicated that they received positive test results for GMO contamination on some portion of their organic seed, inputs or farm products.
  • 8% of the respondents indicated that their organic farm operation has borne some direct costs or damages related to the presence of GMOs in agriculture. These costs include: payment for testing seed, inputs, or organic farm products for GMO contamination; loss of organic sales/markets due to actual contamination or perceived contamination risk; loss of sales due to presence of GMOS in organic product; or loss of organic certification due to presence of GMOs in organic products."
Perhaps this was in DiMatteo's mind when she discussed the possibility of Roundup Ready wheat. If its arrival appears imminent (which some would argue is right now), the OTA likely would ratchet up the pressure by issuing more news releases and working more closely with farm, consumer and environmental organizations to stop it.

"We can't afford another approval of GMO crops for commercial production," DiMatteo says. "In our opinion, the evidence shows that cross-pollination and other problems are leading to [unwanted genes] getting into the food stream."

Related items mentioned above.

  • 'Is it noisy enough at the OTA,' http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=701
  • CWB asks monsanto to put the brakes on roundup ready wheat

    Winnipeg - The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) has called on Monsanto Canada to withdraw its application for an environmental safety assessment of Roundup ReadyR wheat (RRW). Monsanto's RRW application is currently before the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

    In a May 22 letter to Monsanto Canada's President, Peter Turner, the CWB, a farmer-controlled grain marketing agency, detailed the devastating economic impact the introduction of RRW will have on western Canadian farmers.

    "Economic harm could include lost access to premium markets, penalties caused by rejected shipments, and increased farm management and grain handling costs," the letter states. The letter is signed by Ken Ritter, chairman of the farmer-controlled board of directors, and Adrian Measner, President and CEO.

    "Monsanto has said in the past it would not introduce RRW unless it was beneficial to farmers," Ritter said. "Well, there are no benefits. So we're asking Monsanto to put the interests of their customers, western Canadian farmers, ahead of their own commercial interests and put the brakes on RRW, before Prairie farmers suffer serious financial consequences."

    "Customers in over 80 per cent of our markets have expressed serious reservations about genetically modified wheat," Measner said. "For us, the customer is always right. We cannot jeopardize our ability to maximize returns to western Canadian farmers through the introduction of a product our customers do not want."

    The CWB has asked Monsanto to confirm its compliance with the CWB's request by June 27, 2003.

    The CWB has already called on the federal government to close the regulatory gap on genetically modified wheat by adding a cost benefit analysis to the food, feed and environmental assessments currently being undertaken on RRW.

    However, the CWB is taking this additional step because RRW could be approved before the introduction of any regulatory changes. "Under the current system, RRW could be approved for unconfined release as early as 2004," Ritter said. "We had to move quickly, so we are appealing to Monsanto directly."

    A copy of the letter to Monsanto Canada is below. Controlled by western Canadian farmers, the CWB is the largest wheat and barley marketer in the world. As one of Canada's biggest exporters, the Winnipeg-based organization sells grain to more than 70 countries and returns all sales revenue, less marketing costs, to Prairie farmers.

    For more information, please contact:

    Louise Waldman
    Manager, Media Relations & Advertising
    Tel: (204) 983-3101
    Cell: (204) 299-8398
    E-mail: louise_waldman@cwb.ca

    Letter to Monsanto:

    May 22, 2003

    Mr. Peter Turner
    President
    Monsanto Canada Inc
    67 Scurfield Boulevard
    Winnipeg MB R3Y 1G4 Fax No.: (204) 488-9599

    Dear Mr. Turner:

    As you know, the potential release of Roundup Ready(r) wheat (RRW) remains the cause of considerable concern for wheat customers, farmers and others. The farmer-controlled Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) is extremely concerned that the unconfined release of RRW in Canada will result in significant and predictable economic harm to western Canadian farmers. This harm will occur to those who adopt the technology and those who do not, as well as to others in the Canadian wheat value chain.

    Economic harm could include lost access to premium markets, penalties caused by rejected shipments, and increased farm management and grain handling costs. Unfortunately, scientific data demonstrating the food safety of RRW will not, by itself, prevent this harm. Furthermore, the CWB is not satisfied that Monsanto's stated commitments regarding commercialization of RRW will adequately protect the interests of western Canadian farmers and Canada's wheat customers from this economic harm.

    The CWB hereby requests Monsanto withdraw its application to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) for environmental safety assessment of RRW.

    It is of the utmost importance that your decision on this request be made as soon as possible in order to protect the interests of the wheat value chain and to prevent the damages that may result from the unconfined release of RRW. We ask that you confirm by June 27, 2003 your withdrawal from the application process.

    Yours truly,

    Original signed by

    Ken Ritter
    Chair, CWB Board of Directors

    Original signed by

    Adrian C. Measner
    President and Chief Executive Officer

    KR/ag

    066-03CH

    c: Hugh Grant, Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer, Monsanto Company

    CANADA: Monsanto sticks to GM wheat plans despite CWB protest

    28 May 2003
    Source: just-food.com

    The Canadian Wheat Board has called on Monsanto to withdraw its application to test genetically modified wheat in Canada over fears that the country may lose its main wheat markets.

    Canadian and US regulators are both reviewing a Monsanto GM wheat variety for safety issues relating to food, feed and the environment.

    A spokeswoman for the Canadian Wheat Board warned that Canadian farmers could lose hundreds of millions of dollars in sales if Monsantos Canadian unit goes ahead with further tests of its Roundup Readywheat.

    Monsanto spokesman Michael Doane said the company would be communicating in private with the wheat board, but said Monsanto intends to continue with its application for regulatory approval.

    "The wheat board is an important constituent and their request is something we'll take seriously," Doane was quoted by Reuters as saying.

    "We have tremendous support throughout the wheat value chain for getting regulatory approval. People want to know it is safe. We're going to stay on course and continue to look for those regulatory approvals."

    Monsanto officials stressed that regulatory approval was different from commercialisation and said the company would meet necessary criteria before releasing the biotech wheat into the marketplace.

  • OFRF releases partial results of 4th National Organic Farmers Survey: First impacts of GMOs on organic farmers are now documented

    CONTACT: Bob Scowcroft, 831-426-6606
    Erica Walz, 435-826-4565

    SANTA CRUZ, CALIF. – In a nationwide survey conducted by the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF), certified organic farmers have reported the first direct financial and related operational impacts associated with the threat of contamination by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). National standards for organic products, recently implemented by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture exclude recombinant-DNA technologies from use in organic farming. In addition, there are a variety of strict tolerances for GMO contamination imposed on organic growers by foreign and domestic buyers.

    Coping with the threat and consequences of GMO contamination is a recent development for organic farmers. “In 1998, when OFRF conducted our previous survey, GMO contamination was not yet a national issue,” said OFRF Executive Director Bob Scowcroft. “These new survey results based on the 2001 crop year document that significant impacts have begun to occur within a very short time frame. If this trend continues, what we’re seeing now will prove to be just the tip of the iceberg.”

    According to OFRF President Ron Rosmann, a diversified organic farmer from Harlan, Iowa, “This new data supports OFRF’s call for a moratorium on the release of GMOs until there is a solid regulatory framework that prevents genetic pollution and assigns liability for the damages imposed by GMO contamination.” (OFRF’s Organizational Policy Statement on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture is available at .)

    The OFRF survey, Sustaining Organic Farms in a Changing Organic Marketplace, included nine questions related to GMOs and organic farming. Highlights of the survey results are as follows:

    • 17% of survey respondents indicated that they have had GMO testing conducted on some portion of their organic farm seed, inputs or farm products. 11% of those that had GMO testing conducted indicated that they received positive test results for GMO contamination on some portion of their organic seed, inputs or farm products.
    • 8% of the respondents indicated that their organic farm operation has borne some direct costs or damages related to the presence of GMOs in agriculture. These costs include: payment for testing seed, inputs, or organic farm products for GMO contamination; loss of organic sales/markets due to actual contamination or perceived contamination risk; loss of sales due to presence of GMOS in organic product; or loss of organic certification due to presence of GMOs in organic products.
    • 48% of the survey respondents indicated that they have taken some measures to protect their organic farms from GMO contamination. The greatest percentage, 24%, indicated that they have communicated with neighboring farmers about GMO risks to their farm.
    • 19% indicated that they have increased the size of buffer zones to neighboring farms, 18% have discontinued use of certain inputs at risk for GMO contamination, 15% have adjusted timing of crop planting, 13% have altered cropping patterns or crops produced, and 9% have changed cropping locations.
    • 46% of the survey respondents rated the risk of exposure and possible contamination of their organic farm products by GMOs as moderate or greater, with 30% characterizing their farm’s risk as high or very high.
    Survey respondents identified contaminated seed stock as their primary concern as a possible source of GMO contamination of their organic farm products (identified as a moderate to high risk by 48% of respondents). This was followed by GMO pollen drift in the field (identified as a moderate to high risk by 42% of respondents) and contaminated farm inputs, other than seed, (identified by 30% of respondents as a moderate to high risk). Such inputs might include seed inoculants or manures and composts from materials obtained from off the farm.

    Only 10% of survey respondents feel that a regulatory framework is in place to adequately protect their organic farm products from damages due to contamination from GMOs.

    In spring 2002, OFRF mailed a 22-page survey to certified organic farmers throughout the U.S, with 1,034 farmers responding. The 4th National Organic Farmers’ Survey, Sustaining Organic Farms in a Changing Organic Marketplace, is OFRF’s first survey to focus specifically on organic farmers’ experiences in the organic market. The survey was conducted with support from True North Foundation, Wallace Genetic Foundation, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, and contributors to OFRF’s general program fund.

    The OFRF survey included 8 sections: Farm profile; Production and product detail; Marketing your organic products; Organic market conditions, 2001; Information and services; Marketing orders and organic; GMOs and organic; and More about you and your farm (demographics).

    OFRF surveys collect and disseminate information on the demographics, production, marketing and research priorities of organic farmers in the U.S. The survey population is developed from producer certification lists voluntarily provided by organic certification agencies.

    OFRF survey results relevant to GMOs and organic farms will be released this week at the Organic Trade Association’s All Things Organic Conference and Trade Show in Austin, Texas. The complete results of OFRF’s 4th National Organic Farmers’ Survey: Sustaining Organic Farms in a Changing Organic Marketplace will be published in fall 2003.

    http://www.ofrf.org/press/Releases/PR.051403.GMOSurvey.html

    # # #