Biotech Wheat Goes Under the Microscope

Amy Martinez Starke /  The Oregonian 11dec00

Wheat is the worlds most widely eaten food grain and the top grain traded internationally. It's a main crop in Oregon, where the wheat grown is the product of decades of cross-breeding and tinkering by researchers at public land-grant universities.

Now, wheat produced through genetic engineering is on the horizon in the Northwest.

At stake is a crop that contributed $104 million to the state's economy in 1999.

Administrators of Oregon State University's highly regarded wheat breeding program, responsible for developing wheat varieties for production in Oregon, are close to signing a research and development deal with the chemical giant Monsanto to develop a wheat that would resist Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

OSU sees the agreement as a means to help develop better wheat for Oregon farmers. The additional research costs for OSU are minimal, according to officials, and no money will change hands unless a commercialization agreement is drafted, possibly years from now.

Although the actual crops could be years away, genetically engineered wheat would profoundly affect U.S. food supplies. Already, most processed American supermarket foods contain genetically engineered plant material, mostly from soybeans and corn.

But whether Roundup Ready wheat will actually come to market is still up in the air. The international debate about genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is fierce, and the international trade climate is downright hostile to such foods.

Oregon could see key farm exports shrink. About 85 percent of the wheat grown in Oregon and the Northwest is exported. Some of Oregon's big wheat trading partners -- particularly Japan -- strictly regulate or ban genetically engineered products outright.

In the Northwest, scientists and the farming community also are split about the role of biotechnology in developing new crop strains.

Many farmers feel stuck in the middle. Some may want the benefits of decreased weeds through Roundup Ready strains, with the potential for significant dollar benefits because of higher yields. But they also don't want to be left with bins full of unmarketable grain.

"The Pacific Northwest is not prepared for general introduction of GMOs in the wheat industry," said Mark Hegg, a farmer from Palouse, Wash.

Farmers' concerns

The recent costly recall of at least 300 products contaminated with genetically engineered StarLink corn, which has not been approved for human consumption, was the first recall of genetically engineered food. Farmers and producers are worried about the chaos and financial losses that such a fiasco could create for biotech wheat.

"This was a serious breakdown in the system, and we've gotten a chance to learn from the StarLink debacle," said Darrell Hanavan, chairman of U.S. Wheat Associates biotech committee. U.S. Wheat Associates is an export trade organization based in Washington, D.C., with an office in Portland ice erve the Japanese market. Hanavan, based in Englewood, Colo., is also executive director of the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee, the Colorado Association for Wheat Growers and the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation.

"It may save us from some mistakes," Hanavan said of the StarLink experience.

Keeping grain commodities separate so that genetically modified grains don't mix with standard varieties poses a daunting task for grain processors. North American grain handling systems are not designed to segregate grains to the very low tolerances for genetically engineered crops required by Oregon's customers in Japan and Europe.

"It's going to be the real challenge," said Jim Peterson, an OSU wheat breeder. "You have to have absolute perfect segregation. The tests are so sensitive they can literally pick out a few GMO seeds contaminating several thousand bushels."

Even those who don't plant genetically engineered wheat worry that their products will test positive because of accidental blending or cross-pollination -- and they worry about who will be liable. These worries are eased somewhat by the fact that wheat does not cross-fertilize as readily as some other crops.

"Any extra [segregation] costs will be borne by the farmer," even those who choose not to grow GMOs, farmer Hegg said.

Why buy altered wheat?

Wheat prices are low, and farmers cannot afford to lose markets. Why would a farmer opt to increase his production with biotech wheat and pay the Roundup Ready fees with crops already trading at a low price?

Even farmers who don't like the prospect of Roundup Ready wheat have to control weeds, and they agree that Roundup is one of the most efficient and environmentally benign weed control systems available. Planting Roundup Ready wheat would allow farmers to deal with weeds they hadn't been able to control before.

Saving seed is perhaps the farmers' biggest issue. Wheat is still the No. 1 crop under the farmer's control, where seed from each crop can be saved for planting the next year. As Stephen Jones, a Washington State University wheat breeder, said, "That's a basic farmers' right."

With biotech wheat, it's likely the companies would want to protect their investment with a technology fee and would restrict farmers from saving seed for another crop.

Hanavan of U.S. Wheat Associates estimates such tech fees would be about $10 an acre, but Monsanto says it's too early to tell.

Peterson at Oregon State defends Monsanto's fee: "That's the only way Monsanto can recoup any investment on that technology," he said. "If there is a benefit to the farmer, they'll buy it. Monsanto can't price it out of the market, either."

Farmer David Dechant of Fort Lupton, Colo., said he's worried he won't be able to save seed and won't be able to grow wheat unless he contracts with a big company and that he will be forced to grow genetically modified wheat to remain competitive, especially when increased production causes a fall in the wheat price.

"I don't feel that it's right not to save seed," Dechant said.

Peterson said farmers will have a choice. "Basically, 98 percent of wheats developed in the United States by public institutions are public varieties, and nobody has proprietary rights." he said. "They are mostly open-released, with no restrictions on regrowing it. I don't expect that to change in the near future, even with biotech."

University involvement

In all, Oregon State University has 90 scientists from six colleges involved with Center for Gene Research and Biotechnology, using $50 million in long-term grants from federal, state and private sources to finance genetic engineering research.

Between 5 percent and 10 percent of the 90 researchers, funded at the rate of $2.5 million to $5 million, are associated with transgenic plant research that could yield commercial crops, said Associate Dean Michael Burke of OSU's College of Agricultural Sciences. He said most of those 90 scientists are working on basic genetics and cell research, and not on genetic engineering of crops.

Burke said OSU gets little financial support from industry and that very little of its financing is tied to the companies that one day hope to market biotech products.

"We don't get much support from industry," Burke said. "Most comes from outside granting agencies, and most of them aren't Monsantos or Duponts."

Ed Souza, a University of Idaho wheat breeder, has signed a similar agreement with Monsanto to work on Roundup Ready wheat.

"Who owns what, how do you pay for it? It's an enormous issue -- serving both of those masters and keeping everybody happy," Souza said.

Reluctant researcher

One university wheat breeder who won't sign a biotechnology agreement is Jones of WSU. He is chairman of the National Wheat Crop Germplasm Committee, which advises the federal government on the acquisition, protection and distribution of wheat germplasm, or genetic stock.

He refuses to sign any agreements for the highly prized wheat varieties he has developed that would result in technology fees, royalties or any other additional cost to wheat growers.

"Who actually owns this material?" he said.

He said he believes taxpayer-supported research shouldn't subsidize private companies. He is opposed to private ownership of wheat varieties and is concerned about the effect of genetic engineering on public crop breeding programs.

Researchers at the two other WSU wheat breeding programs [including spring wheat], he said, are willing to make agreements with biotech companies to work on developing genetically modified wheat crops. Other colleges involved in similar work include the University of Idaho, North Dakota State University, Colorado State University and the University of Minnesota.

Souza of the University of Idaho says there isn't a lot of motivation right now to work on the technology.

"There is a reluctance to move ahead," Souza said, "and Idaho wheat growers ask that we not release it until consumer acceptance can be guaranteed."

"The goals of the researchers and corporate concerns aren't necessarily those of the producer [wheat farmer]," said Hegg of Palouse, Wash. Hegg wants Oregon, Washington and Idaho to reach a cooperative agreement before introduction of genetically modified wheat.

Public-private agreements

Hanavan, chairman of the biotech committee, said public-private research collaborations benefit both companies and farmers.

"We see them as a partnership," he said. "They have helped provide competition and made available more than one source of wheat."

Peterson said public-private partnerships such as the one between OSU and Monsanto are essential. "They can't do it without us; we can't do it without them," he said.

Without these public-private agreements, Hanavan said, wheat farmers would lose on two issues. Biotech companies might bypass universities, eliminating the public breeding system, which develops the best wheats. And the companies could develop their own seed and sell it directly to farmers, as is the case with genetically modified corn and soybeans.

"You've got to put Roundup Ready wheat into the best adapted wheats, which universities have developed, rather than in inferior varieties," Hanavan said.

Peterson emphasized that if OSU eventually signs a commercialization agreement, the university and Monsanto will have "joint control over whatever comes out."

OSU owns the genetic stocks, and Monsanto owns the Roundup Ready gene. The research would be done in Wichita, Kan.

Even if biotech wheat is marketed, Peterson said he doesn't see blanket use of biotech wheat, mostly because it would lose its effectiveness.

"We don't have any intention of going 100 percent biotech," he said. "A large component will still be non-biotech. We want to maintain options for our growers."