The Prairie Star, MT
04-14-06
Embracing biotech wheat means stiff-arming the consumer
To the editor:
Bruce Freitag, a farmer from southwestern North Dakota and vice chair of
Growers for Biotechnology (formerly Growers for Wheat Biotechnology Inc.),
would like consumers to believe that we need to go full speed ahead with
commercializing biotech wheat so North Dakota's wheat industry doesn't become
a “sinking ship.” Convoluted thinking of this type - some would call it hubris - is
most likely responsible for the sinking of the Titanic on its maiden voyage.
Thankfully, the ship that is biotech (transgenic) wheat has yet to sail on its
maiden voyage. Citing market resistance, Monsanto Co., the transnational
corporation first in line to commercialize transgenic wheat in North America, gave
up on the idea in May 2004.
Coming up on the second anniversary of Monsanto's sane decision, what have
we learned? We know that the commercial introduction of transgenic wheat
within the next several years could cause major risk to the U.S. wheat industry.
After examining data on existing markets, consumer trends, and grain handling
and transportation systems, Robert Wisner, a grain market economist at Iowa
State University, has concluded that the commercial introduction of transgenic
wheat could result in the loss of 30- to 50-percent of U.S. spring wheat export
markets - and a reduction of up to one-third in U.S. prices for hard red spring and
durum wheat.
Anyone have a sinking feeling?
By the way, a “transgenic” plant, such as the wheat Monsanto proposed, is one
whose genome has been modified by the introduction of novel DNA. In other
words, transgenic plants contain foreign genes from totally unrelated species from a Red River (of the North) bullhead, for example, if one of its genes were to
possess a desirable “trait.”
How can this be? One method of novel gene transfer involves a “gene gun,”
which relies on compressed air to fire microscopic gold particles coated with the
foreign DNA at cells. And proponents of transgenic crops scoff at the term
“Frankenfoods”?
Through a misuse of regulatory authority, the Food and Drug Administration has
determined that transgenic foods are “substantially equivalent” to conventional
foods, a finding that exempts transgenic foods from any special testing or risk
assessment. The FDA also has given the foreign genes and proteins engineered
into transgenic foods the designation of being “generally regarded as safe”
(GRAS), which means that companies selling these foods usually don't need to
use any special labels.
In America, no comprehensive, systematic approach for determining the safety of
transgenic foods has occurred. Instead, American consumers are being
“assured” by folks such as Mr. Freitag that no widespread health problems have
resulted from the transgenic foods now available. This evidence, by anecdote, is
supposed to imply safety, and yet, our lessons involving tobacco and DDT, to cite
only a few examples, demonstrate that what we don't know indeed can harm us.
Mr. Freitag, if you're so convinced of the safety and benefits of transgenic foods,
then why not push for these foods to be labeled as such? Certainly, the
confidence you've expressed in “the market” will prove you right. Or, could it be
that consumer ignorance, or apathy, is what you're betting on to save biotech
wheat.