Bio Tech Wheat Coalition Forms

[charliep]

Press release

Biotech Wheat Coalition Forms

The Grain Growers of Canada, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, and the Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission have reached an accord with the National Wheat Growers Association, U.S. Wheat Associates, North American Millers' Association, the Grains Council of Australia, Grain Growers Association, and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia (Inc.) regarding the need for the synchronized introduction of biotech wheat.

The groups say that application of biotechnology in wheat research could lead to the development of several traits to improve wheat yields and wheat quality. Wheat acreage in Western Canada has declined significantly over the past two decades, in part due to its declining profitability (relative to canola and other crops) and increased competition from other wheat producing countries such as Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Argentina.

Given the time frame of six to eight years for new biotech wheat varieties to reach commercial introduction, the coalition says it is critical to signal both seed developers and policymakers now. Many farmers are already eager to see biotech traits in wheat that could improve their profitability and improve food security for many countries around the world.

In the interest of expressing support for more efficient, sustainable, and profitable production of wheat around the world, the organizations have approved a joint statement concerning commercialization of biotechnology in wheat. They believe it is in the best interests of the industry to introduce biotech wheat varieties in a coordinated fashion to minimize market disruptions and shorten the period of adjustment.

[agstar77]

Monsanto wouldn't be part of that coalition would they?? I am all for biotech innovation as long as the producer benefits as much as the biotech industry.

[charliep]

Another article on this issue.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1527462220090515

Key points.

* Wheat Board wants assurance of market acceptance

* GM wheat seen unpopular with many overseas customers

* Some farm groups support GM wheat commercialization

Of interest to me because looking at the consumer and farmer acceptance of GM barley in a project I am working on. Interesting Australia is looking at GM barley not only for herbicide tolerance but also salinity and drought tolerance.

[Hopperbin]

Agstar we have benefitted more than we admit sometimes. Just think about canola if we didn't have liberty or RR resistance. The acreage would be less and producers would be less well off. Canola is still my cinderella crop I don't care what anyone else says. But very important that consumers are comfortable with the product we sell as well.

[charliep]

Noted the following article on biotech - Canada risks missing out on bioeconomy opportunity.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1122780.html

When I see the comments on Monsanto and the big boys, I have to ask who should do the research and what their return on investment should be given the risk and time involved in getting new variety approved. My assumption is Canada may not want to be on the bleeding edge of biotech but we may not what to be too far behind with the technology when it is being used in other areas of the world.

Just a question to get people thinking while you are out on the tractor.

[agstar77]

What we have to ask is who is driving Biotech and in what direction. Do we want to use less chemical inputs or more? Are the biotech directions to crops with unique nutritional qualities or just to increase chemical dependency? Can we develop crops that use less fertilizer? Companies should be compensated but the direction should be producer and consumer driven not driven by commercial demands.

[gustgd]

In regards to bio-tech I saw a quote once. "The opponents of bio-tech have to make a decision. they have to choose between deforestation starvation or bio-tech crops."

[haveapulse]

An editied copy of a communicaiton sent to Peter at Farm.com

My opposition is not with the technology which I have no doubt would have potential to amaze, it is with the question of the sharing of the pie. How do we insure that global oligopoly suppliers leave a dollar on the table for producers? Who will insure that Canadian farmers are not charged more for the property than their competitors in other counties, since I believe the suppliers have a “what the market will bear” pricing mechanism, while the world market is set by the lowest price producer. In addition the question of abundance must ask , who actually gains? I have witnessed many people loose their farms because the world had too much grain for the market place, despite starving peoples around the world. Farmers starvation was economic. Abundance of yield does not necessarily translate into economic abundance for producers. Nor did we feed the starving world in our abundant years. However the overall size and profitability of biotech firms appears to grow uninhibited in good times and bad. And there can be a credible argument made that higher grain prices actually benefit the poor nations much more than the advantaged as a larger percentage of their population is agrarian, rarely does abundance create higher prices.

My opposition is not based in the technology, it is simply in the equation and the reality that every action has a reaction and in this one who decides how much is enough for the farmers around the globe to pay for biotech seeds c/w matching chemicals and herbicides? The keepers of this key should not just be the bio tech firms. It has been my observation, based on experience (not research) that costs, especially seed, herbicide and fungicide have an inelastic habit, and prices do not. Canadian farmers must compete with farmers around he world, many countries who are rapidly becoming our competitors particularly in wheat production, do not have the same intellectual property rights. As a result, their costs are lower, so I believe until we have unanimous agreement from our emerging competitors, (especially the CIS) and confidence of their adherence to this policy we are folly to support this in Canada.

I also note, when the price of grain went down input costs did not equitably decrease , in fact they remained higher in Canada than in the US despite the fact that net farm income in the US increased buoyed by subsides (and a more competitive market place). However when grain prices increased costs followed more rapidly.


In Saskatchewan our climate has a pattern, which averages 1 in 8 to 1 in 10 crop losses due to drought. This high average challenges risk management, higher cash costs increase the need for better risk management strategies.

We also live in a country which facilitates the same intellectual property protection as Europe and the USA but fails to produce similar income protection measures for the consumers of that intelletual property; the farmers.



It is the old cart before the horse problem:

If farmers in Canada are to pay the price for bio tech then it is my opinion that we should begin with better tax policy to insure that farmers here in the next go around of low commodity prices can remain profitable. We should also insure we have an alternative market to the global market; ie bio fuel, or food production so we are not totally dependant upon an export market. We then need a global monitor to indure our competitors have similiar bio tech costings so we do not have to support costs higher than our competitors ie; no TUA some counties, Canada has TUAs. And in event of economic collapse of the market place due to overabundance and cheap commodity if our government endoreses this policy they should be prepared to step in with a level of meaningful support. You see , intellectual property should not be the only property we protect and portection is a form of subsidy. And finally we need to demand a panel for global accountability, and price monitoring of input costs levied by the bio tech firms.


The bottom line is in global agriculture is the fact the playing field is not level, and while we accommodate the natural boundaries of the playing field, with bio tech we invoke a technical playing field, which at this time I cannot be confident will be even remotely level, as noted with TUAs.

However if it does go through, I figure it may be best to buy shares.