1.Wheat Groups Worldwide Align on Biotechnology
2.CANADA: Canadian Wheat Board cautious about GM wheat
3.USA: No to GMO Wheat
4.OZ: How to RUIN an Industry! GM WHEAT!
5.OZ: Potential Industry Sabotage with GM Wheat

EXTRACTS: "Farmers don't want to lose a key market opportunity due to customers' resistance of GMOs."

GM wheat would be unpopular with many of Canada's overseas markets, said Jerry Klassen, an independent grain analyst.

"This is a blind decision (by the farmer groups) without talking to the customer first," he said. 

Farmers have improved production practices in the past decade and new wheat varieties have developed that prove there are ways to improve yields without altering the plant's genes, Klassen said. (item 2)

U.S. wheat growers know that there is zero market demand. We know our buyers, and they will simply not accept genetically engineered wheat. They have told us so to our face, politely and repeatedly.

The purpose of the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) is to promote our industry and to develop our markets, and it is funded with wheat grower dollars. To conduct and publish a survey that blatantly misrepresents the opinions of the very constituency it was created to serve is unconscionable. The commercialization of GE wheat will have one consequence only: the destruction of a stable, mature wheat producing industry that has taken 50 years to build. (item 3)
---
---
1.Wheat Groups Worldwide Align on Biotechnology
By Eric Schroeder
BakingBusiness.com, May 14 2009 [extract only]
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17977.cfm

WASHINGTON - With the view that acting together would minimize market disruptions, wheat industry groups in the United States, Canada and Australia said today they would work toward the objective of "synchronized commercialization of biotech traits in the wheat crop." Acknowledging the sensitivity of the subject in several parts of the world, including export markets such as Japan and the European Union, the groups issued a series of joint principles on wheat biotechnology.
---
---
2.Canadian Wheat Board cautious about GM wheat
Rod Nickel
Reuters, May 15 2009
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE54E59X20090515?pageNumbe r=2&virtualBrandChannel=0 

SASKATOON, Saskatchewan (Reuters) - The Canadian Wheat Board won't support genetically modified wheat until key conditions are in place, including assurances that its overseas markets would accept the crop.

"We know that this is potentially the wave of the future but right now we're just not there," said Maureen Fitzhenry, spokeswoman for the Wheat Board, which holds a government-granted monopoly on sales of Western Canada's wheat and barley.

Consumers in Europe and Japan are wary of genetically modified foods, although the European Union recently accepted GM canola seed from Canada.

The Wheat Board, which opposed Monsanto Co's application for a herbicide-tolerant GM wheat in 2004, would also want to see a greater benefit, such as resistance to fusarium disease or improved yield and quality, Fitzhenry said. At present, there's no way to effectively segregate GM wheat from non-GM wheat, which would be another condition the board would want satisfied, she said.

Some farm groups from the top wheat-exporting nations of the United States, Canada and Australia have agreed to support synchronized commercialization of genetically modified wheat. The agreement, announced on Thursday by the National Association of Wheat Growers, is an attempt to align the countries against any international backlash if GM wheat is introduced and to invite seed development companies to press ahead with biotech wheat development.

Most Western Canadian farmers support a cautious approach to GM wheat, Fitzhenry said.

"Farmers don't want to lose a key market opportunity due to customers' resistance of GMOs (genetically modified organisms)."

GM wheat would be unpopular with many of Canada's overseas markets, said Jerry Klassen, an independent grain analyst.

"This is a blind decision (by the farmer groups) without talking to the customer first," he said.

GM strains of corn and soybeans, which resist pests and tolerate herbicides, dominate the U.S. market, creating concern that wheat isn't staying competitive with other crops.

But farmers have improved production practices in the past decade and new wheat varieties have developed that prove there are ways to improve yields without altering the plant's genes, Klassen said.

Genetically modifying wheat might produce certain benefits but that doesn't ensure it will respond the same way to baking processes, he said. Spring wheat is used in flour, while durum wheat is grown for pasta.

Monsanto Co, a leading producer of GM crop seed, is not currently developing GM wheat varieties but the company has noticed a change in farmers' attitudes, said spokeswoman Trish Jordan.

"We're encouraged by the support industry growers are showing by this statement for biotech investment in wheat," she said. "If the market conditions were right, there may be some opportunity for us to re-enter the wheat space."

One of the drawbacks to spending research and development dollars on wheat is that farmers tend to reuse their own seed, unlike canola growers who buy new seed every year. That's a profitability issue that farmers could address by agreeing under contract not to reuse seed, Jordan said. 

The government registration process in Canada would take years and include feedback from a committee that includes farm groups and the Wheat Board.

(Editing by Rob Wilson)
---
---
3.A Farmer Speaks: No to GMO Wheat
Todd Leake
Grist Magazine, May 13 2009

Editor's note: Several weeks ago, the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) issued a press release proclaiming that 75 percent of its member farmers support the rollout of genetically modified wheat seeds. According to NAWG, wheat farmers are clamoring to follow their corn and soy counterparts toward a biotech-dominated future. Todd Leake, a wheat farmer and NAWG member, has a different viewpoint.

Since the Nixon Administration, farmers have been told that their survival was dependent on the ability to compete in the global marketplace. Wheat producers have been particularly mindful of the need to grow a product that meets broadest possible consumer and market expectations. As a result, fifty percent of the wheat produced in this country is destined for buyers in foreign markets, and these buyers have very specific requirements for the wheat they purchase.

Over the last 50 years we have worked diligently to develop and enhance our relationship with international buyers, who are routinely surveyed to determine which specific characteristics and traits they desire. We work with agronomists and plant breeders to develop hybrids that meet our customers’ expectations; in doing so, we have developed a mature and stable market for the wheat produced by U.S. farmers.

However, this is an increasingly shifting marketplace. Our competitors in other countries have developed the capacity to grow wheat for the export market, and buyers now have the luxury of being very selective. They are now spoiled for choice.

When Monsanto first petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture for deregulation of their Roundup Ready wheat, we feared consumer backlash based on the loss of European and Asian markets that corn growers experienced when genetically engineered (GE) corn varieties were commercialized in 1996. Our fears were substantiated through a Canadian Wheat Board buyer survey conducted in 2003, which determined that 83% of foreign buyers would not accept genetically engineered wheat and would seek alternate sources if either the United States or Canada commercialized a GE wheat variety. Building on that survey, Dr. Robert Wisner, a respected Iowa State agricultural economist, concluded that wheat producers would see a drop of as much as 35% in farmgate prices if GE wheat were commercialized.

Nothing has changed in the global marketplace for wheat, but a recent National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) survey would have the world believe that wheat growers themselves overwhelmingly support adoption of genetically engineered wheat.

But this couldn't be further from the truth. Although NAWG has publicly claimed its survey finds that "more than three-quarters of the respondents approved a petition supporting the commercialization of biotechnology in wheat," a close examination of that petition reveals that NAWG fundamentally misrepresents its own data, overstates the significance of the results, and exaggerates U.S. wheat growers' demand for genetically engineered wheat - all to the detriment of its member farmers.

To begin with, NAWG states that only growers with more than 500 acres of wheat and more than 1,000 acres in total production were chosen to participate (to save on postage, NAWG claims); only 32% of them took part in the postcard solicitation survey. Every year I grow substantially more than 500 acres of wheat, and yet, I never received a survey. Why were particular farmers chosen and why were other growers left out?

The survey itself made virtually no effort to glean nuanced truth from its participants. Respondents were not asked whether or not they would grow GE wheat, only to endorse a petition that "encourages both public and private sectors to support the discovery and development of new technologies" for wheat. Biotechnology was merely one of many potential methods mentioned within the much broader context of NAWG’s stated desire to increase the productivity, profitability, and sustainability of the wheat growing industry, three things no sane wheat grower would disagree with.

Of the 21,262 survey cards sent out, 5,272 marked their checked the "I AGREE!" biotech wheat/petition box. NAWG somehow interprets this as 76% of growers endorsing biotech wheat. NAWG apparently didn't want to mention the 1, 635 wheat farmers who checked the I DISAGREE box and chose to ignore the 14,355 producers who likely tossed it aside with the rest of the junk mail.

I first became aware of this NAWG survey at a speech by NAWG CEO Daren Coppeck given at a breakout session of the Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers (MAWG) annual meeting in Grand Forks, North Dakota in Dec. 2008. In his speech Mr. Coppeck said "There will be biotech wheat." He went further to say that enforcement actions against farmers would be necessary to protect biotech companies’ investment. Does it surprise me that Mr. Coppeck would be able to predict the outcome of a survey that had yet to be mailed out or he would advocate suing farmers that save their own wheat seed? Not really, because after years of attending such annual meetings and MAWG functions such as the annual wheat summits, I have witnessed the leadership of MAWG endorse GE wheat even when a poll of the membership attending did not. I have seen the leadership of MAWG endorse GE wheat even when there was no particular GE wheat trait that they were endorsing. In other words: GE wheat for the sake of GE wheat.

It is clear to farmers and close observers that improving productivity, profitability, and sustainability does not depend upon the introduction of genetically engineered wheat. In fact, the greatest strides in developing modern, superior wheat varieties have been made through traditional breeding methods, not genetic engineering. Introduction of GE wheat will cause wheat seed to become proprietary property of seed companies, increase seed costs for farmers and keep wheat producers under the thumb of 5 international seed companies.

NAWG's claim of overwhelming demand is misleading at best, and does not represent the position of the farmers for which NAWG claims to speak. Even if NAWG's survey had not been fudged, U.S. wheat growers know that there is zero market demand. We know our buyers, and they will simply not accept genetically engineered wheat. They have told us so to our face, politely and repeatedly.

The purpose of the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) is to promote our industry and to develop our markets, and it is funded with wheat grower dollars. To conduct and publish a survey that blatantly misrepresents the opinions of the very constituency it was created to serve is unconscionable. The commercialization of GE wheat will have one consequence only: the destruction of a stable, mature wheat producing industry that has taken 50 years to build.
---
---
4.How to RUIN an Industry! GM WHEAT!
Amicus Curiae 
May 15 2009 
http://amicus.rfdamerica.com/?p=23

I was about to go to sleep when an e-mail arrived. Now I am so blazingly angry I will not sleep at all! What upset me? This prime piece of idiocy on the part of some simpletons, who have succumbed to the Monsanto-Dow-Syngenta Koolaid!

"Major wheat industry organizations from the US, Canada and Australia have announced that they intend to work together to commercialize genetically modified (GM) wheat crops."

"Although other GM crops have been in use for several years, there is currently not a single GM wheat variety commercially available. This is partly due to consumer resistance to GM wheat, particularly in Europe, a situation that has resulted in a dearth of funding for biotech wheat research."

So, seeing as Europe is a major purchaser of our Aussie wheat, and quite a lot from Canada and USA, too, HOW will this improve sales?

"In a joint statement issued on Thursday, the organizations said: 'While none of us hold a veto over the actions of others, we believe it is in all of our best interests to introduce biotech wheat varieties in a coordinated fashion to minimize market disruptions and shorten the period of adjustment.'"

Excuse me? In whose best interest? They assume that they can bluff us, by acting as a group? They seem to forget citizens are a larger group.

Competition from GM

"The organizations said that one of the main problems they face is declining acreage planted to wheat as arable farmers turn to other grains with 'the advantages of biotech traits.'"

Pure bull! Subsidized crops for ethanol in the USA have a whole lot more to do with that factor!

"On the contentious issue of GM crop safety, the wheat industry statement said: 'Over 10 years of global experience with biotechnology has demonstrated a convincing record of safety and environmental benefits as well as quality and productivity gains.'"

Safety? Environmental benefits? Higher than ever pesticide use, and herbicide resistance, outcrossing to other species, and herbicide resistant wild radish, oats and skeleton weed in Australia has increased in paddocks that Round-Up is used on, the weed loves it! 24D used to destroy RR resistant weeds does not reduce chemical or enviro-damage in any way shape or form.

No independent research has found quality or productivity gains either, only Monsanto's blurb says that!
---
---
5.Potential Industry Sabotage with GM Wheat
Network of Concerned Farmers, 15 May 2009

The Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF) was shocked today to find Australian farm lobby groups supported GM wheat development and the coordinated approach to prevent farmers marketing as non-GM. The statement was approved by Grains Council of Australia and PGA along with United States and Canadian grower organisations.

"The introduction of GM wheat is nothing short of industry sabotage as markets do not want it," said Julie Newman NCF National Spokesperson.

"It does not matter how good GM wheat is if we can't sell it, but its sabotage if it stops non-GM farmers selling our wheat too."

"Commercial GM crops are restricted to those crops that are primarily used for fibre, oil or stock food, but GM wheat is primarily used for human consumption and is not accepted by markets. If GM wheat is grown in any state, the market perception would be that all wheat in that state would be GM unless proven to be non-GM which is too difficult and expensive. This is the reason why no GM wheat has been commercialised anywhere in the world."

The combined GM wheat statement suggested synchronised commercialisation to minimise market disruptions and a commitment to work with other stakeholders before commercialisation.

"Experience has shown that while industry promises to segregate for political purposes, there is no intention to deliver it. Choice is denied as all the costs, liabilities and responsibilities are imposed on non-GM farmers."

"The intention of this GM wheat joint alliance is clearly to force all farmers to market as GM in the hope that farmers and consumers are denied a non-GM choice."

"We can not allow negligent decisions to destroy our industry.”

The NCF support fair risk management to ensure non-GM farmers are not adversely impacted by GM crops and also support non-GM biotechnology.

Contact Julie Newman Phone 08 98711562