 TESTIMONY
ON GM WHEAT
The North Dakota Grain Dealers Association is here to testify in
favor of CONCEPT within this bill, while not commenting pro or con on
the bill itself. The
concept we support, and that we urge this committee and the entire
legislature to adopt, is having more stakeholders than only the seed
companies controlling the release of genetically modified spring wheat
seed. Farmers, grain
handlers such as country elevators, grain processors and grain exporters
all have a vital interest.
Grain elevator managers deal everyday with the major milling
companies buying spring wheat from North Dakota.
Those companies are not seeking GM spring wheat.
Even regulatory approval of GM wheat matters none if the buyers
don’t want it. This is a
customer-driven market. Until
the customer sees value, he has much to lose and little if anything to
gain with GM spring wheat.
The economic drivers for the seed companies are not the same as
for those of us in the grain handling, processing and exporting
industries. Who is in a
better position to know when there is sufficient market acceptance, the
seed company or the grain handlers who deal with markets everyday?
We think the answer is quite obviously the grain handlers.
We are not anti-GMO. In
fact we have testified in the past to its great potential.
Starlink corn was a debacle for the Corn Belt, and even into a
few counties of North Dakota. Some
of that just showed up in a shipload of corn in Japan, two years after
it was to have been gotten out of the system.
Some North Dakota seed stocks were jeopardized by some
contamination in Chili. The genie can get out of the bottle quickly, and with very
serious consequences.
We’ve heard legislators say that the grain elevators are able
to segregate out most anything. Thanks
for the confidence, but I hope everyone understands that segregating to
zero tolerance is impossible. Keeping
14-protein wheat separate from 15-protein, where some of one leaked into
the other is of little or no consequence, is quite different with
something the market will react too much more vigorously.
Some of us remember when vomitoxin was first found in our small
grains in the early 90s. The
Minneapolis market essentially shut down for a couple of days.
When Karnal bunt was first found in the southwestern United
States in 1996 all shipments from there were cut off.
The same thing happened from four counties in Texas two years
ago. It wasn’t a matter of discounts, it was flat-out we don’t
want it.
We are comparing MARKET REACTIONS.
We aren’t saying that food from genetically modified crops is
dangerous. But in the
market, perception is reality. Right now the perception, whether that be wrong or right, is
not in our favor on GM wheat.
One indication of the seriousness with which this is considered
in the market is that trading of the July 2004 hard red spring wheat
futures contract on the Minneapolis Grain Exchange has been postponed
while a committee formulates a recommendation to the Exchange board as
to whether genetically modified wheat will be acceptable as delivery
against futures contracts.
Foreign buyers representing nearly 50 percent of U.S. wheat
exports request a declaration from the Federal Grain Inspection Service
saying “There are no transgenic wheat varieties for sale or in
commercial production in the United States at this time.”
Among the countries requesting the statement are the largest
importers of U.S. wheat, including Japan, Mexico, the Philippines, South
Korea, Taiwan, and Italy. What
happens when FGIS can no longer issue such a declaration is not known.
Many more stakeholders than seed companies have a vital interest
in that. This entire state
has a vital interest in that.
We’ve heard it said that North Dakota can’t be an island.
Please be aware that on January 27 the Montana State Senate
passed SJR8 by a vote of 50-0 which says that the introduction of GM
wheat and barley “must be carefully timed so that it occurs only when
there is acceptance of these crops by Montana’s major customers.”
Our Association has never lobbied for a legislative statutory
moratorium that could only be lifted by another session of the
legislature. What we have
supported and still support is a mixture of people who have a stake and
knowledge of the situation to control release.
Attached to this testimony is what was considered in the last
session. We urge you to
consider something like it again, with more marketing people on it.
I’ll try to answer any questions you might have.
|