GM organisms (GMOs) are developed using recombinant
DNA, also called “genetically engineered” (GE) techniques, which consist in inserting
a section of DNA from a donor into a recipient organism – often of different
species. The EU has a moratorium on the approval of new GM products. Japan,
South Korea, and Taiwan have labeling regulations on GMOs. Other countries are
reviewing food safety legislation. Consumers in several wheat-importing
countries strongly oppose GM food because of concern of its unknown long-term
effects on humans, animals, and the environment.
HRS WHEAT: THE NEXT GM FOOD CROP?
HRS wheat accounts for about 25% of US wheat
production and about 23% of total US wheat export sales. More than 50% of US
HRS wheat is grown in Central and Eastern North Dakota and the rest primarily
in Montana, South Dakota, and Minnesota. It is also grown in the Canadian
provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. It contains the highest
protein level of all wheat, which makes it excellent for bread.
Monsanto Company (a US based seed company) is
genetically engineering HRS wheat to tolerate its proprietary brand of Roundup
herbicide, enabling higher application levels of the chemical without killing
the crop. Monsanto in collaboration with scientists in land grant universities
are conducting field trials of GM HRS wheat in the United States, as well as in
Canada and other countries. Monsanto has recently announced plans to ask the
governments of the US, Canada and Japan for regulatory approval of its Round
Ready GE wheat.
Farmers fear that field release of GM wheat will
contaminate conventional and organic wheat and effectively eliminate HRS wheat
markets. Farmers and consumers from North Dakota have proposed a bill for a
moratorium on the introduction of GM wheat in the state, and similar
legislation in other states may follow.
The Canadian Wheat Board has requested that the
Canadian government not approve the registration of GM wheat unless it is
broadly accepted by customers, and that approval of new GM varieties be
postponed until a segregation system is developed throughout the production,
handling, and transportation chain.
HRS wheat growers have reason for concern because many
of the countries that block imports of GMOs or have tough GMO legislation are
large HRS wheat importers.
REGULATORY UPDATE FOR MAJOR US WHEAT IMPORTERS
Japan
Japan is the largest importer of US HRS wheat
absorbing about 24% of this export market. It is also the second largest
importer of total US wheat, absorbing about 12% of the US export wheat market
(Table 1). In the 2001-2002 marketing year HRS wheat purchased by Japan made
up 46% of its total wheat purchases from the US. Although more than half of
Japan’s wheat purchases are from the US, it also buys wheat from Australia and
Canada.
Nearly 100% of Japan’s wheat imports are made by the
government through a Food Agency office in the Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). The agency publishes a list of varieties
wanted. Japanese subsidiaries of grain exporting companies present bids that
are evaluated against the government’s price ceiling and negotiating terms.
Private businesses may import wheat and processed wheat products (cookies,
etc.) at high tariffs.
Since the mid-1990’s, Japan has witnessed enormous
consumer concern on GMOs. The Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (MHLW)
is in charge of food safety while the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries (MAFF) oversees GMO food labeling under Japan’s agricultural standard
law.
On April 1, 2001 a mandatory safety assessment became
a requirement for foods and food additives produced by GM techniques before
market approval. The food sanitation law No. 232 as amended requires that “when
foods are all or part of organisms produced by recombinant DNA techniques, or
include organisms produced by recombinant DNA techniques either partially or
entirely, such organisms shall undergo examination procedure for safety
assessment made by the Ministry for Health and Welfare and shall be announced
to the public in the Official Gazette.” (The
Official Gazette of Japan is
counterpart to the Federal Register
of the United States.)
Mandatory labeling of food products containing 5% or
more GM ingredients also became effective in Japan on April 1, 2001.
Additionally, labels are required on all food products that were not
specifically segregated into GM and non-GM supply chains, regardless of the
presence or absence of GMOs in the final product.
Unapproved GM products are not allowed in Japan, but
the government has approved more than 40 GM food items. Japanese consumers
complain that most GM products existing in the US have been authorized in
Japan. Also, many consumers are not satisfied with the current 5% tolerance
for GM ingredients because it excludes from the labeling requirement highly
processed products such as cooking oil and baby food. Consumers claim MAFF is
not carrying out sufficient inspections and that MHLW’s safety assessments are
based only on companies’ reports while data is not disclosed on grounds they
are trade secrets.
In light of the ongoing development of GMO wheat by
Monsanto, Japanese representatives have said that Japanese authorities should
be consulted before commercial marketing of GM food products is targeted to
Japanese consumers. In 2000, when Starlink corn (a GM corn not approved for
human consumption in the US) was found in shipments to Japan, the Japanese
government requested that all corn undergo clearance at shipping US locations
and a strict protocol was established to that effect.
European Union
The EU is the second largest importer of US HRS wheat
absorbing about 16% of this export market. It is also the third largest
importer of total US wheat, buying about 9% of the US total export wheat market
(Table 1). HRS wheat purchased by the EU makes up 41% of its total wheat
imports from the US.[3]
In the 2001-2002 year the EU imported a record of 9 million tons of wheat,
mostly from Ukraine and Russia.
Since 1998 the European Union has maintained a de
facto moratorium on the approval of new GM agricultural products. The
moratorium resulted from the demand of six governments, led by France, that
called for stricter labeling, traceability, and liability rules for GM
products. So far, approval of thirteen GM varieties has been delayed in the EU
regulatory pipeline, halting some $300 million in US corn exports. Those most
directly affected by the current EU GMO moratorium are US corn growers,
exporters and the biotechnology industry, notably Monsanto.
On July 3, 2002 the European Parliament (EP) approved
legislation for the labeling and traceability of GMOs in both food and animal
feed. The EP has proposed a total ban on unapproved GM varieties in shipments
of bulk commodities, setting a 0% tolerance for contamination. In bulk
shipments purporting to be non-GM varieties, the EP proposal would tolerate up
to 0.5% contamination from approved varieties, to accommodate “adventitious” or
accidental trace amounts of contamination before requiring labels[4]
and shippers must demonstrate that GM traces are truly accidental.
Under the EP proposals, traceability of GMOs would
require manufacturers to declare any GM content at each stage of the production
process and to label GM foods even if processing has destroyed any trace of
genetic modification, as occurs with highly processed corn and soybean oil.
If the GMO legislation is passed[5],
these traceability and labeling rules are expected to become effective in late
2003 at the earliest.
US government officials claim that if the labeling and
traceability legislation is implemented as proposed, US corn and soybean
exports would cease. The US State Department has said that it is working with
the EU to modify the labeling and traceability proposals to its liking and win
approvals for the import of GM products. Both the US Trade Representative and
industry are weighing the potential implications of launching a WTO dispute
charging the EU legislation would create an illegal barrier to US trade on
grounds there is no scientific basis for regulating GMOs differently from other
foods.[6]
One concern is that a WTO challenge might not result in a lifting of the
moratorium but instead result in a hardening of opposition to biotechnology and
to the WTO itself.
In August 2002 the European Community ratified the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, a treaty that establishes procedural rules
governing the trade of GMOs. One of the treaty’s main requirements is that
exporters must gain explicit permission from importer countries before shipping
GM organisms like seeds or fish for release into the environment. It also
affirms the Precautionary Principle[7]
as a basis for denying such permission. Once the Cartagena Protocol enters into
force, policymakers will have to balance its provisions with those of the WTO.
The EP proposal for an environmental liability regime
is based on the “polluter pays” principle employed in the now moribund “Super
Fund” in the US. Under this principle, the polluter is required to pay for the
cost of cleaning up damage done to the environment. The Commission's measure
would apply to damages to biological diversity and compensate victims
(including farmers). The proposed EU directive would establish a European-wide
liability regime, but would give national authorities responsibility for its
enforcement. The liability provisions are likely to take much longer to become
law in the EU than the traceability and labeling regulations.
Philippines
The Philippines is the third largest importer of US
HRS wheat absorbing about 13% of this export market. It is the sixth largest
importer of all US wheat, absorbing about 7% of the US total export wheat
market (Table 1). HRS wheat purchased by the Philippines in 2001-2002 made up
44% of its total wheat purchases from the US.
The Philippines Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (R.A.
3720) provides for food safety measures, standards, and labeling to be implemented
by the Bureau of Food and Drugs. A National Committee on Biosafety was created
in 2001 to develop guidelines on genetically engineered organisms. The
National Committee on Biosafety is an interministerial committee led by the
Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Health.
Officially the Philippines does not allow the
commercial planting nor consumption of GMO products. However, many Filipinos
suspect that corn and soybeans imported from the US contain GMOs, which may
have spread into their production system. In 2001, farmers uprooted Bt corn
plants from field trials conducted by Monsanto.
Taiwan
Taiwan is the 4th largest buyer of US HRS
wheat absorbing 10% of the US HRS wheat export market. It is the 8th largest
importer of all US wheat, absorbing 4 % of the US total wheat export market.
HRS wheat purchased by Taiwan made up 58% of its total US wheat purchases in
2001-2002.
Monitoring and safety of food for human consumption is
under the Bureau of Food Sanitation of the Department of Health. In 2000, under
pressure from Taiwanese activist and consumer groups, the Health Department was
working on guidelines for labeling GMO foods that would require GMO farm
products to meet government safety standards by the end of that year. However
due to counter-pressure from domestic food industries, the government decided
in December 2000 that it would provide food manufacturers with a grace period
of up to four years before requiring products containing biotechnology-enhanced
ingredients to be labeled.
Under the new schedule, mandatory labeling on GMO
foods is to be implemented in three stages: raw corn and soybean products are
to be labeled in 2003; the labeling of processed corn and soybeans products is
delayed until 2005.
Once labeling becomes mandatory, Taiwan’s Bureau of
Food Sanitation intends to adopt a standard setting a 5% threshold level of GMO
material that will be tolerated in products before the GMO label is required.
GM crops are not planted in Taiwan legally.
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea is the fifth largest importer of
US HRS wheat absorbing 6% of the US HRS wheat export market. It is the seventh
largest importer of all US wheat, absorbing about 5% of the US total export
wheat market (Table 1). HRS wheat purchased by the Republic of Korea in
2001-2002 made up 28.5% of its total wheat purchases.
The Korean Food and Drug Administration (KFDA) under
the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW) is in charge of food safety
regulations and oversees labeling of GMO processed food. The National
Agricultural Products Quality Management Service (NAQS), under the Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), oversees labeling of GMO raw agricultural
products. On March 28, 2001 the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy
enacted legislation regarding GMO transfers between countries and announced
plans to establish enforcement regulations.
In 2002 mandatory labeling of GM soybeans, beans
sprouts, potatoes and corn became effective, and also applies to processed food
and food additives containing GM ingredients. The threshold level below which
GMOs do not require labeling is 3%.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF)
admitted on February 19, 2001 that probably 33% of imported corn ( 2,762
thousand metric tons) and 57% of imported beans (1,400 thousand metric tons)
from the US contained GMOs.
The Republic of Korea does not allow the planting of
GM crops.
Mexico
Mexico’s purchases of HRS wheat are just 2% of total
US HRS wheat exports. It is the fourth largest importer of all US wheat,
comprising about 9% of the US export wheat market (Table 1). Mexico’s wheat
purchases from the United States have been on the rise, with about a 16%
increase since 1998.
In 1999 an Interministerial Commission on Biosafety
and Genetically Modified Organisms, CIBIOGEM, was created to oversee the
import/export, testing, and release of GMOs. The Secretariat of Agriculture,
Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA) issues certificates
for the importation, movement and release of GMOs and ensures compliance with
biosafety regulations during field trials. The Secretariat of Health is
responsible for developing and enforcing safety regulations on food for human
consumption.
In late 2000, the Mexican Senate approved mandatory
labeling of GM products as part of a general health code. The bill would
require that GM food carry a label stating “transgenic food” and that food
containing GM ingredients be labeled as “food made with transgenic products.”
However, a powerful consortium of biotechnology companies, AgroBIO Mexico A.C.,
opposed the legislation and in February 2001, twenty US agribusiness
organizations requested the US Trade Representative ask Mexico not to implement
mandatory labeling of GM foods. To date, the bill has not passed and GM foods
in Mexico are not being labeled.
Mexico continued its imports of US corn, even after
Starlink corn was recalled from US stores and sold to foreign markets.
Recently, the Mexican government disclosed that about 10% of native corn
varieties sampled in 22 communities from the states of Oaxaca and Puebla were
contaminated with GM corn and an investigation was launched to determine its
extent and origin. However, civil society organizations have pointed out that
just US$40,000 have been allocated to the effort and charge the government with
negligence over the genetic contamination of maize, a traditional symbol of
food security in Mexico.
In 2002, the Mexican Senate voted in favor of
ratifying the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol to govern trade in GMOs.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s purchases of US HRS wheat comprise less than
1% of US HRS wheat exports. Nigeria is the 5th largest importer of
all US wheat absorbing about 8% of the US export wheat market.
The National Agency for Food and Drug Administration
and Control (NAFDAC) under the Federal Ministry of Health is the regulatory
agency for food safety and inspection. The National Biosafety Committee (NBC)
provides technical advice to the government on the assessment of the risks and
benefits associated with the production and application of GMOs and other
biological materials. The NBC includes representatives from the Ministries of
Agriculture, Industry, Environment, Health, Science and Technology, as well as
the scientific community and private sector.
The Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural
Resources in 1994 developed Guidelines on Biosafety for Nigeria, that were
revised and recently approved by the National Executive Council (cabinet). The
guidelines include regulations for the introduction and handling of GMOs and
would complement a substantive bill being prepared for the consideration of the
national assembly.
Nigeria also is a signatory to the Cartagena Protocol
on Biosafety.
Egypt
Egypt purchases less than 0.5% of US HRS wheat exports
although it is the largest net importer of all US wheat absorbing about 16% of
the US export wheat market (Table 1). Its main wheat source is the US, with
Australia and Canada as secondary sources. Egypt bans all GM products and
officials have expressed concern about the development of GM wheat varieties in
the US.
Most wheat purchases are made by Egypt’s government,
which through its embassies forwards bidding requests to grain companies,
evaluates their responses, and places orders. In an effort to keep bread
affordable, Egypt’s government buys mostly the cheaper soft wheat varieties;
hard wheat varieties are bought by private enterprises such as hotels. If
prices are considered too high, the government may cancel imports.
Food safety policies are under the jurisdiction of the
Ministry of Health (MOH), Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR),
and the Ministry of Industry (MOI). Implementation of biosafety guidelines on
GM plants is the responsibility of the National Biosafety Committee (NBC) and
the Supreme Committee for Food Safety (SSCFS), comprised of an
inter-ministerial committee and a range of experts. The NBC and SSCFS oversee
approvals for seed destined for planting only, and not imported commodity grain.
The Variety Registration Committee (VCR) oversees the registration and release
of seeds.
Egypt’s Ministerial Decree (MOH) N° 242/1997
officially prohibits the entry into Egypt of GM food. In practice, however,
food from GM plants is imported if the importer provides two documents:
certification of safety from a foreign governmental agency and documentation of
the product’s commercial status in the country of origin. This practice is
based on a recommendation of the SSCFS.
A recent food safety assessment prepared by Egypt’s
Agricultural Policy Reform Program of MALR may lead to weaker biosafety
regulations to allow the marketing of GM plants for feed and food.
CURRENT GM RESEARCH IN WHEAT
While Monsanto is seeking governmental approvals of
HRS wheat engineered to tolerate Roundup herbicide, other wheat varieties are
also being developed to resist its proprietary chemical Roundup.
Several land grant universities are conducting studies
on scab resistant wheat[8]
under the auspices of biotech companies. Two years ago wheat breeders from
North Dakota State University bred a Fusarium-resistant
variety from China with HRS wheat and produced “alsen,” a scab-tolerant HRS
wheat which is now widely planted in Central and Eastern North Dakota and
Western Minnesota.
Another GM wheat trait under research in US Department
of Agriculture (USDA) labs would alter protein quality to give dough more
elasticity in longer mixing periods. Powdery mildew resistant wheat is
undergoing research in Europe. Barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDU) resistant
wheat is under research in Australia.
Some HRS wheat farmers say that a GM Fusarium-resistant wheat is not necessary
to address a problem that has already being solved using traditional breeding
methods. Many agricultural ecologists contend that crop diseases have increased
under modern agriculture because of intensive cropping and the monoculture
system that lacks the added benefit of associated crops and weeds on which
pests can spread. Other traditional agricultural practices that minimize pest
incidence have also been abandoned in modern intensive agriculture.
CONCLUSIONS
For many US farmers, wheat is their most valuable
export crop and source of income. Now Monsanto with several universities has
developed GM HRS wheat, a Roundup herbicide-tolerant variety. For the US
farmer, this raises significant questions: Will GM wheat accelerate the
erosion of the wheat market? How will GM wheat be received in countries with
tough GMO regulations? Will HRS wheat markets be lost for good?
Also, there are fears that GM wheat in the field will
cross pollinate with non-GM wheat varieties catapulting the demise of both
conventional and organic wheat destined for foreign markets. Organic canola
was not produced this year in North Dakota and Western Canada because it could
not be guaranteed as GM-free.
In conclusion, US wheat farmers have strong reasons to
question the introduction of GM wheat in their fields.
REFERENCES
BBC News, July 3, 2002
Food Chemical News Daily, Vol. 43, No. 27, August 20,
2001
Food Chemical News Daily, Vol. 4, No. 169, March 6,
2002
Food Chemical News Daily, Vol. 44, No. 21, July 8,
2002
Inside US Trade, February 2002
Inside US Trade, March 2002
Inside US Trade, June 18, 2002
Inside US Trade, June 28, 2002
Inside US Trade, July 12, 2002
International Environment Reporter, Vol. 24 No. 25,
December 5, 2001
International Environment Reporter, Vol. 25 No. 05,
February 27, 2002
International Environment Reporter, Vol. 25 No. 08,
April 10, 2002
International Environment Reporter, Vol. 25 No. 09,
April 24, 2002
International Environment Reporter, Vol. 25 No. 13,
June 19, 2002
International Environment Reporter, Vol. 25 No. 14,
page 644, July 3, 2002
International Environment Reporter, Vol. 25 No. 15, page 686, July 17, 2002
http://www.smallgrains.org/whfacts/6classwh.htm
http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu
http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/plantsci/smgrains/pp804w.htm#Mycotoxins
http://www.cwb.ca
http://www.fas.usda.gov/export-sales/wheat.htm
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/wheat/
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/wheat/background.htm
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/wheat/Trade.htm
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2002/06-02/wht_txt.htm
http://www.fas.usda.gov/starlink.html
http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/biotech/biotech_index_en.html
http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/biotech/biotech09_en.pdf
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/index_en.htm
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/02/927|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=
http://binas.unido.org/cgi-bin/htsearch
http://binas.unido.org/binas/country.php3?id=13
http://binas.unido.org/binas/show.php3?id=16&type=html&table=regulation_sources&dir=regulations
http://www.biodiversidadla.org/noticias3/noticias486.htm
Reuters News Service, January 28, 2002
Reuters News Service, March 8, 2002
Reuters News Service, June 21, 2002
Reuters News Service, June 26, 2002
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to Cynthia Chin from Consumers' Foundation in Taiwan, Claire Deveaux
from the Five Year Freeze in the United Kingdom, Malou Edano from the University of the Philippines, Mika Iba from the National Coalition for Safe
Food and the Environment of Japan, Stephen Jones from Washington State
University, Todd Leake from the Dakota Resource Council, Hyesook Lee
from Citizens' Alliance from Consumer Protection of Korea (CACPK), Kent
Nnadozie from the Environmental Law Foundation of Nigeria, Gichinga Ndirangu
from the International Food Rights Campaign of Kenya, Geert Ritsema from
Friends of the Earth of Europe, Mark Trechock from the Dakota Resource Council,
Dave Torgerson from the Minnesota Wheat Association, from Action Aid, Ryan Zinn
from Global Exchange, as well as Tess Galati and many others for their contributions to this research.
Chela Vazquez
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
2105 First Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404
Tel: (612) 870-3441
Fax: (612) 870-4846
Email: cvazquez@iatp.org
www.iatp.org
WHEAT:
THE NEXT ENGINEERED CROP?