Jun. 7, 2009
Global Groups Reject GMO Wheat
Below is a statement signed by 15 entities:
In light of our existing experience with genetic engineering, and recognizing
the global consumer rejection of genetically engineered wheat, we restate our
definitive opposition to GE wheat and our commitment to stopping the
commercialization of GE traits in our wheat crops. We are committed to working
with farmers, civil society groups and Indigenous peoples across the globe as we
travel the road toward global food sovereignty.
In the interest of reiterating the decisive global rejection of genetically
engineered (GE) wheat, culminating in Monsanto's 2004 withdrawal of requests to
the Canadian and U.S. governments for commercialization of their GE wheat; and
in the interest of laying to rest the attempts by Monsanto and other
biotechnology corporations to introduce genetically engineered wheat, the
undersigned organizations issue the following joint statement:
1. Wheat is an ancient grain that is vital for meeting the nutritional needs of
many societies and has deep religious significance in many cultures. Wheat is
one of three staple crop plants (the other two are rice and maize) that account
for two-thirds of the diet of the world's population. Over centuries of
cultivation, farmers have developed a tremendous diversity of wheat varieties,
many of which are adapted to the soil and climate conditions of certain regions
of the world. These locally-bred varieties are critical to ensuring local food
supplies during times of weather-related disasters. In Australia, Canada, and
the US, farmers and public scientists have worked collectively with this
diversity to develop varieties adapted to local conditions and suited to
relevant markets. Multinational seed companies have played an insignificant role
in fundamental wheat seed development in these countries or anywhere else in the
world.
2. The remarkable achievements in wheat breeding that farmers and scientists
have managed over generations have not involved genetic engineering or
patenting. While farmers and conventional breeders continue to lead the way in
innovation with wheat, there are currently no genetically engineered traits in
the pipeline for wheat that promise basic agronomic improvements. In reality,
the only GE trait in wheat for which approval has been sought is for tolerance
to the herbicide glyphosate. This trait is not designed to increase yields, but
to simplify herbicide application. Not only does this technology contribute
nothing to feeding the world, genetic engineering is a direct threat to global
food security. Genetic engineering can and does lead to contamination of seed
varieties, and poses a decisive threat to organic farming and the production of
crop varieties bred specifically for local conditions. Moreover, the
introduction of GE wheat would put the wheat seed supply in the hands of a small
number of multinational corporations, as has happened with the introduction of
GE soybeans, GE corn and GE canola. During the recent food crisis, these
companies used their oligopolistic positions to dramatically increase the price
of seeds and agrochemicals. Farmers planting wheat in the Australia, Canada and
the US were less affected by these price increases because they were free to
save seeds and had access to public varieties. Monsanto, the world's largest
producer of GE seeds, increased its profits by 120percent in 2008. It should
also be noted that since the introduction of GE crops in 1996, the number of
people going hungry in the world has ballooned from an estimated 800 million to
over 1 billion.
3. Rather than the area of wheat production decreasing due to competition from
GE crops, a March 2009 Statistics Canada survey of farmers in western Canada
found that farmers plan to increase acreage of wheat, barley and peas, crops for
which there are no GE varieties and where plant breeding is primarily in the
public sector. The survey also revealed that farmers intend to cut back on acres
planted to canola seed, which is mainly GE in Canada, in order to decrease
production costs. Additionally, there is no evidence to substantiate the claim
that GE crop varieties increase yields.
4. Plant breeders and farmers have for too long narrowly focused on economies of
scale and higher yields. This has resulted in higher input costs and lower net
income for farmers. Higher yields have come at a high cost economically, as well
as environmentally, because high yielding crops tend to require more fertilizers
and chemical inputs. Improved crop quality is more likely than bigger yields to
provide higher realized net incomes for farmers. Higher quality wheat can be
achieved efficiently and accessibly through conventional plant breeding, and
this is where support for research needs to be located.
5. Genetic engineering is a highly imprecise technology. GE crops are
inadequately regulated by governments that rely on corporate data rather than
public, peer reviewed science. Complex questions relating to the effects of GE
crops on soil health, non-target insects, and human health remain understudied.
Over 10 years of experience with GE crops has exposed a convincing record of
high levels of irreversible contamination and corporate control over seeds as
well as continued scientific uncertainty. Additionally, research from wheat
organizations (Canadian Wheat Board and Australian Wheat Board) has indicated
very strong market rejection of GE wheat. Commercial GE crops have so far been
limited to crops used primarily for feed, oil and fibre and have thus not been
subjected to national labelling requirements in many countries. GE wheat,
however, would primarily be used for human consumption and food products derived
from GE wheat would be labelled as GE in many countries across the world.
Additionally, if GE wheat is released commercially, contamination would be
inevitable and markets would view all wheat produced from these areas as GE
unless proven to be non-GE. Farmers growing GE wheat will take on all of the
responsibilities, costs and liabilities, with little available legal recourse to
recover their losses.
6. Private seed companies are not investing in wheat research because of
competition from strong public plant breeding programs and the desire and
capacity of farmers to save wheat seeds from year to year. The main reason why
seed companies want to introduce GE wheat is so that, by means of gene patents,
they can stop farmers from saving seeds. The introduction of patents into wheat
breeding will destroy the collective heritage of plant breeding for wheat and
erode the strong public breeding programmes for wheat in the Canada, Australia
and the US which have always generated impressive returns through minimal public
investments and/or farmer contributions. Additionally, in February 2009, 26 top
US corn scientists sent a statement to the US Environmental Protection Agency
asserting that independent research is being thwarted by industry
technology/stewardship agreements.
In light of our existing experience with genetic engineering, and recognizing
the global consumer rejection of genetically engineered wheat, we restate our
definitive opposition to GE wheat and our commitment to stopping the
commercialization of GE traits in our wheat crops. We are committed to working
with farmers, civil society groups and Indigenous peoples across the globe as we
travel the road towards global food sovereignty.
Signed By:
National Farmers Union, Canada
Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
Union Paysanne, Canada
Union Biologique Paysanne, Canada
Réseau Québécois contre les OGM, Canada
Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, Canada
Network of Concerned Farmers, Australia
Organic Federation of Australia
Biological Farmers of Australia
Gene Ethics, Australia
Greenpeace
National Family Farm Coalition, USA
Western Organization of Resource Councils, USA
Center for Food Safety, USA
Organic Consumers Association, USA
--------
Source: The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network