RR Wheat: NAWG Doesn't Speak for Me
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
David Dechant -- CropChoice guest commmentary --

"Wheat Groups Ask USDA to shun biotech critics" says the headline
of an Apr. 25 Reuters article. It tells how the US Wheat Associates
and the Wheat Export Trade Education Committee "joined with NAWG
(National Association of Wheat Growers) to assert that the biotech
opponents did not represent the interests of the wheat industry."

Well, who are the biotech opponents? I know of no one who opposes the
science of biotechnology and these wheat groups should not label
people opposed to transgenic wheat with such a broad term. On the
other hand, I do know many folks who have serious concerns with whatís
going on in one field of biotechnology, that being, the creation of
transgenic crops and animals, as well as with how the companies doing
so are promoting and commercializing them. This includes a good many
consumers. Do they not eat wheat, too? Are consumers not a vital part
of any industry?

And, what makes NAWG, WETEC, and US Wheat Associates think they and
they alone represent the interests of the most basic part of the US
wheat industry, the American wheat farmer himself? I find that fellow
farmers who are anxious for RR wheat's introduction are few and far in
between.

Just because wheat farmers are forced to pay an assessment, a.k.a.
checkoff, upon selling their wheat, part of which goes to help fund
these groups, doesn't mean they speak for the vast majority of
farmers.

In fact, last spring, farmers overwhelmingly rejected an initiative in
Colorado to increase the wheat checkoff from one cent to two cents per
bushel by 62 percent against to 38 per cent in favor. Being that only
twenty percent of wheat farmers even bothered to return their ballots
in the first place, only about one out of every dozen wheat farmers,
therefore, took any action to increase the checkoff. Farmers certainly
feel they aren't getting any bang for their money, or else they would
have approved the increase, especially being that the increased
portion would have been refundable even if it did pass!

NAWGís state affiliates are voluntary membership organizations and are
supposed to be separate from state checkoff boards. In practice, they
are not so separate and, in many cases, share staff and offices. So
when Colorado Association of Wheat Growers Executive Director Darrell
Hanavan testified against GMO labeling at the Colorado statehouse a
few years ago, I couldn't tell whether he was speaking for the growers
association or the checkoff board, that being the Colorado Wheat
Administrative Committee, as he is Executive Director of it, too.

Consequently, being that the original portion of the Colorado wheat
checkoff is mandatory, I felt like my own money was being used against
me and still do. Though I can choose not to be a member of groups
heavily dependent upon agribusiness donations and favors for their
existence, like CAWG or NAWG, I cannot choose whether I want to be
assessed or to which group Iíd like to send my money if I want to be
assessed. But if I had a choice, no groups that take corporate
donations or try to force RR wheat upon an unwilling market would get
any of my money. And, that includes the US Wheat Associates and WETEC
when they join in with agribusiness friendly NAWG in writing to the
USDA "to assert that the biotech opponents did not represent the
interests of the wheat industry."

They speak for Monsanto and the few wheat farmers looking forward to
RR wheat, but not for me or numerous other like-minded farmers. Nor do
they speak for consumers, without whom there would be no wheat market.
With this in mind, a more fitting title for the Reuters article would
be, "Monsanto Influences Wheat Groups in Asking USDA to Ignore
Consumers."

David Dechant grows wheat, corn and alfalfa in Colorado.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
RR Wheat: NAWG Doesn't Speak for Me
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
David Dechant -- CropChoice guest commmentary --

"Wheat Groups Ask USDA to shun biotech critics" says the headline
of an Apr. 25 Reuters article. It tells how the US Wheat Associates
and the Wheat Export Trade Education Committee "joined with NAWG
(National Association of Wheat Growers) to assert that the biotech
opponents did not represent the interests of the wheat industry."

Well, who are the biotech opponents? I know of no one who opposes the
science of biotechnology and these wheat groups should not label
people opposed to transgenic wheat with such a broad term. On the
other hand, I do know many folks who have serious concerns with whatís
going on in one field of biotechnology, that being, the creation of
transgenic crops and animals, as well as with how the companies doing
so are promoting and commercializing them. This includes a good many
consumers. Do they not eat wheat, too? Are consumers not a vital part
of any industry?

And, what makes NAWG, WETEC, and US Wheat Associates think they and
they alone represent the interests of the most basic part of the US
wheat industry, the American wheat farmer himself? I find that fellow
farmers who are anxious for RR wheat's introduction are few and far in
between.

Just because wheat farmers are forced to pay an assessment, a.k.a.
checkoff, upon selling their wheat, part of which goes to help fund
these groups, doesn't mean they speak for the vast majority of
farmers.

In fact, last spring, farmers overwhelmingly rejected an initiative in
Colorado to increase the wheat checkoff from one cent to two cents per
bushel by 62 percent against to 38 per cent in favor. Being that only
twenty percent of wheat farmers even bothered to return their ballots
in the first place, only about one out of every dozen wheat farmers,
therefore, took any action to increase the checkoff. Farmers certainly
feel they aren't getting any bang for their money, or else they would
have approved the increase, especially being that the increased
portion would have been refundable even if it did pass!

NAWGís state affiliates are voluntary membership organizations and are
supposed to be separate from state checkoff boards. In practice, they
are not so separate and, in many cases, share staff and offices. So
when Colorado Association of Wheat Growers Executive Director Darrell
Hanavan testified against GMO labeling at the Colorado statehouse a
few years ago, I couldn't tell whether he was speaking for the growers
association or the checkoff board, that being the Colorado Wheat
Administrative Committee, as he is Executive Director of it, too.

Consequently, being that the original portion of the Colorado wheat
checkoff is mandatory, I felt like my own money was being used against
me and still do. Though I can choose not to be a member of groups
heavily dependent upon agribusiness donations and favors for their
existence, like CAWG or NAWG, I cannot choose whether I want to be
assessed or to which group Iíd like to send my money if I want to be
assessed. But if I had a choice, no groups that take corporate
donations or try to force RR wheat upon an unwilling market would get
any of my money. And, that includes the US Wheat Associates and WETEC
when they join in with agribusiness friendly NAWG in writing to the
USDA "to assert that the biotech opponents did not represent the
interests of the wheat industry."

They speak for Monsanto and the few wheat farmers looking forward to
RR wheat, but not for me or numerous other like-minded farmers. Nor do
they speak for consumers, without whom there would be no wheat market.
With this in mind, a more fitting title for the Reuters article would
be, "Monsanto Influences Wheat Groups in Asking USDA to Ignore
Consumers."

David Dechant grows wheat, corn and alfalfa in Colorado.

The growers, associations, Wheat boards and wheat associations are all the
same people wearing different hats. If you add in farm bureau, and the rest
of the insurance companies they are grooming their dog for the fight that
may or may not have the interests of agriculture at the for front. The names
they sport has little to do with their aims.

When trade is normalize the countries that promoted GM crops will be
remembered and those that tried their best ot block them will be remembered.
Your orders will be filled last with the highest contracts of the day and
the worst product that will meet he delivery contract. If there aren't
enough rat turds in the shipment there will be by delivery time. There is a
good deal of latitude in grade of corps and it can be cut a lot closer then
the grade specifies. You can get the short end every time. All the grain
dust, cracked grain, rat turns, mixed crops dirt and stones have to go some
were and it not to our friends.

Gordon

When trade is normalize the countries that promoted GM crops will be
remembered and those that tried their best ot block them will be remembered.

What do you mean by "normalize"?

You make this sound like a Bush-style "with us or against us" kind of
speech. Whether or not to consume GM food is a personal choice which
should be respected...

For more on GM wheat see he

http://www.gmfoodnews.com/gmwheat.html

regards
Marcus

wrote in message
...

When trade is normalize the countries that promoted GM crops will be
remembered and those that tried their best ot block them will be
remembered.

What do you mean by "normalize"?

You make this sound like a Bush-style "with us or against us" kind of
speech. Whether or not to consume GM food is a personal choice which
should be respected...

it is only a choice if people are actually willing to spend money to get a
more expensive option and in the UK it looks as most people aren't.After all
they just allow themselves to believe what the supermarkets tell tem

Jim Webster

For more on GM wheat see he

http://www.gmfoodnews.com/gmwheat.html

regards
Marcus

Farmers taking GM fight to Ottawa

SASKATOON - A group of prairie farmers plans to take concerns about
genetically modified (GM) wheat to Ottawa. They are seeking a
moratorium on the product until their concerns are met.

"We will be telling them a moratorium should be put on the
registration of GM wheat..." - Neal Hardy Saskatchewan farmers say
that if Ottawa doesn't listen, and markets are lost, someone should
have to pay for those losses. The Canadian Wheat Board claims that
more than 80 per cent of its customers won't buy genetically modified
wheat. The board and some farm groups say if Ottawa approves
Monsanto's application to introduce its Roundup Ready wheat, the whole
industry will suffer.

They will take that message to the Senate's Agriculture Committee in
Ottawa early next month. Neal Hardy, the President of the Saskatchewan
Association of Rural Municipalities, says his group will have a clear
message for the committee.

"We will be telling them a moratorium should be put on the
registration of GM wheat until such time as the market accepts it or
there are ways to keep it separate," says Hardy.

He has no problem with the science of GM wheat, saying that someday it
will be accepted in the marketplace. Until then he says someone should
have to pay if GM wheat is approved, and farmers lose markets as a
result of the move.

"If you're going to allow it out there, we need to have something in
legislation or regulations that protects the rest of us from getting
it contaminated into our product that we don't want to grow. And who
is going to be responsible," Hardy says.

He describes it as sort of a liability clause. Under the current
rules, federal officials look at food safety issues when assessing
Monsanto's application, not market acceptance.

CWB asks Monsanto to put the brakes on roundup ready wheat

Winnipeg - The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) has called on Monsanto
Canada to withdraw its application for an environmental safety
assessment of Roundup Ready(R) wheat (RRW). Monsanto's RRW application
is currently before the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

In a May 22 letter to Monsanto Canada's President, Peter Turner, the
CWB, a farmer-controlled grain marketing agency, detailed the
devastating economic impact the introduction of RRW will have on
western Canadian farmers. "Economic harm could include lost access to
premium markets, penalties caused by rejected shipments, and increased
farm management and grain handling costs," the letter states. The
letter is signed by Ken Ritter, chairman of the farmer-controlled
board of directors, and Adrian Measner, President and CEO.

"Monsanto has said in the past it would not introduce RRW unless it
was beneficial to farmers," Ritter said. "Well, there are no benefits.
So we're asking Monsanto to put the interests of their customers,
western Canadian farmers, ahead of their own commercial interests and
put the brakes on RRW, before Prairie farmers suffer serious financial
consequences."

"Customers in over 80 per cent of our markets have expressed serious
reservations about genetically modified wheat," Measner said. "For us,
the customer is always right. We cannot jeopardize our ability to
maximize returns to western Canadian farmers through the introduction
of a product our customers do not want."

The CWB has asked Monsanto to confirm its compliance with the CWB's
request by June 27, 2003.

The CWB has already called on the federal government to close the
regulatory gap on genetically modified wheat by adding a cost benefit
analysis to the food, feed and environmental assessments currently
being undertaken on RRW.

However, the CWB is taking this additional step because RRW could be
approved before the introduction of any regulatory changes. "Under the
current system, RRW could be approved for unconfined release as early
as 2004," Ritter said. "We had to move quickly, so we are appealing to
Monsanto directly."

A copy of the letter to Monsanto Canada is attached [Below]

Controlled by western Canadian farmers, the CWB is the largest wheat
and barley marketer in the world. As one of Canada's biggest
exporters, the Winnipeg-based organization sells grain to more than 70
countries and returns all sales revenue, less marketing costs, to
Prairie farmers.

*****

Mr. Peter Turner
President
Monsanto Canada Inc
67 Scurfield Boulevard
Winnipeg MB R3Y 1G4
Fax No.: (204) 488-9599

Dear Mr. Turner:

As you know, the potential release of Roundup Ready(R) wheat (RRW)
remains the cause of considerable concern for wheat customers, farmers
and others. The farmer-controlled Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) is
extremely concerned that the unconfined release of RRW in Canada will
result in significant and predictable economic harm to western
Canadian farmers. This harm will occur to those who adopt the
technology and those who do not, as well as to others in the Canadian
wheat value chain.

Economic harm could include lost access to premium markets, penalties
caused by rejected shipments, and increased farm management and grain
handling costs. Unfortunately, scientific data demonstrating the food
safety of RRW will not, by itself, prevent this harm. Furthermore, the
CWB is not satisfied that Monsanto's stated commitments regarding
commercialization of RRW will adequately protect the interests of
western Canadian farmers and Canada's wheat customers from this
economic harm.

The CWB hereby requests Monsanto withdraw its application to the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) for environmental safety
assessment of RRW.

It is of the utmost importance that your decision on this request be
made as soon as possible in order to protect the interests of the
wheat value chain and to prevent the damages that may result from the
unconfined release of RRW. We ask that you confirm by June 27, 2003
your withdrawal from the application process.

Yours truly,

Original signed by
Ken Ritter Chair, CWB Board of Directors
Original signed by
Adrian C. Measner President and Chief Executive Officer
KR/ag
066-03CH
c: Hugh Grant, Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer,
Monsanto Company

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
CWB asks Monsanto to put the brakes on roundup ready wheat

Winnipeg - The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) has called on Monsanto
Canada to withdraw its application for an environmental safety
assessment of Roundup Ready(R) wheat (RRW). Monsanto's RRW application
is currently before the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

It will be very satisfying when a crop becomes tight and the historically
inelastic prices send the price of gm free crops soaring.

Because of the surpluses of grain the countries demanding non gm crops have
been able to get them from free. As soon as there is even a perceived
shortage the gm free shipments prices will soar in relation to conventional
crops.

For the last three years we have been using grain a greater than production
rates. Soybean rust has made it's way to the US. The EU has suddenly become
a buyer of oil seed meals.

It may take a while for a major agricultural catastrophe to happen but one
will and you will find your gm free postion very expensive.

It may come to a point that there is not enough gm free goods available to
meet the worlds needs if the major exporting countries keep adopting them.
Your sky is falling opposition to them is wearing thin and with the
countries lining up on the US side in the WTO it may turn out the world just
ignores your concerns on you farm to fork tractability. Particularly if the
WTO rule in our favor.

A united EU is a powerful economic force but the same methods of divide and
conquer will work on the EU has it has in every other conflict. And there
are serious rifts in the EU. The US may be arrogant, materialist and rude
but we have a depth of capital that no one can match when it comes to war of
any kind, conventional, trade or what ever. Trying to impose your standards
on the world will in the end only cost you a great deal of money and leave
your farmers and industry so far behind modern practice that they can not
compete.

Zeiss is as good an example as I can think of. They make with no question
the finest optics in the world. But even running a not for profit business
and cutting out all their dealers and dealing factory direct to reduce
operating cost to the bone they can't compete with Olympus in microscope and
other in other fields.

The longer you try this charade the more it will cost you.

Gordon

MGEX passes biotech wheat rule, KCBT mulls one too

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - With the world's first biotech wheat making
its way through the regulatory approval process, the Minneapolis
Grain Exchange this week approved a rule that allow companies
to avoid biotech wheat deliveries.

With a vote of 126 to 53, MGE members approved a provision that
allows those companies accepting deliveries of spring wheat to
fulfill futures contract obligations the choice of specifying
non-biotech wheat.

The resolution becomes effective with the July 2004 hard red spring
wheat futures contract and all subsequently listed trading months.

Genetically modified wheat currently is not available in the
marketplace, but Monsanto Co (MON.N) is seeking approvals in Canada
in Japan and plans to first commercialize its herbicide-resistant
wheat in spring wheat varieties.

MGEX officials described the new rule as a proactive measure aimed at
preserving order and heading off disputes that could arise in the
future as biotech wheat comes to market.

With a nod to the MGEX, members of the Kansas City Board of Trade were
also taking up the issue. The exchange's wheat contract committee will
be discussing if a similar rule is needed in Kansas City, said KCBT
president Bob Petersen.

"That will be an issue here. We're just now starting to wrestle with
it," Petersen said.

"What we're presuming is that Monsanto will get approval sometime in
the next 12 months," said Petersen.

Monsanto has not said when or if it would commercialize a hard red
biotech variety after it launches its Roundup Ready spring wheat, but
the exchange wants to be prepared, said Petersen.

"Minneapolis is kind of on the front lines of that so we'll watch and
see how they handle that issue," he said.

Monsanto undeterred as biotech wheat debate persists

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Monsanto Co. (MON.N) said it will continue to seek
regulatory approvals for the world's first genetically modified wheat
despite allegations that the controversial product could devastate
Canadian wheat exports.

Monsanto believes its bid to win deregulation of its Roundup Ready
wheat in Canada and the United States has "tremendous support," said
Monsanto spokesman Michael Doane.

The regulatory review process should answer questions and concerns
about the product's safety and efficacy, Doane said.

"People want to know it is safe. We're going to stay on course and
continue to look for those regulatory approvals," Doane said.

Doane's comments followed Tuesday's plea by the Canadian Wheat Board
for Monsanto to withdraw its application to test herbicide resistant
wheat in Canada. The CWB is one of Canada's largest exporters and is
controlled by western Canadian farmers.

The CWB said the "Roundup Ready" wheat would have a "devastating
economic impact" on Canadian farmers because foreign buyers opposed to
genetically altered foods would shun Canadian supplies.

The CWB's concerns echoed similar fears in the United States, most
recently underscored in March when a consortium of U.S. agricultural
and environmental groups filed a legal petition seeking a federal
moratorium on Monsanto's Roundup Ready wheat. But the regulatory
review is still under way.

Some think Monsanto might have regulatory approval in time to market
its biotech wheat in 2004. But customer acceptance remains a
significant hurdle.

That was underscored earlier this month when the Korea Flour Mills
Industrial Association (KOFMIA), a major U.S. wheat customer, said it
would boycott American supplies if U.S. regulators approve biotech
wheat varieties.

North American Millers' Association vice president Jim Bair said
Tuesday that concerns are so high about market disruption that
Monsanto should slow down the regulatory approval process to focus on
customer acceptance.

"In this case the market acceptance is clearly lagging behind
regulatory approval. We think those two things need to happen in
tandem," said Bair. "Trying to force it onto the market .. is merely a
recipe for chaos."

Other U.S. wheat industry leaders said that Monsanto should continue
to pursue regulatory approvals so it could release the wheat variety
in Canada and the United States simultaneously, preventing either
country from gaining an advantage in the wheat export market.

"Monsanto has assured us that they will do this as a joint effort,"
said North Dakota Grain Growers executive director Lance Hagan. "It
would be economic suicide for them to go back on that."

U.S. Wheat Associates, which markets U.S. wheat to foreign countries,
also said customer acceptance remained an obstacle to a successful
launch of Monsanto's wheat. "U.S. Wheat continues to strongly urge
Monsanto and other technology providers to ensure customer acceptance
prior to commercialization," said U.S. Wheat spokeswoman Dawn
Forsythe.




--


GENET
European NGO Network on Genetic Engineering

Hartmut MEYER (Mr)
Kleine Wiese 6
D - 38116 Braunschweig
Germany

phone: +49-531-5168746
fax: +49-531-5168747
mobile: +49-162-1054755
email: genetnl(at)xs4all.be

Monsanto GMO wheat far from winning market okay

KANSAS CITY, Mo - A genetically modified wheat strain under
development by Monsanto Co. (MON.N) remains a significant threat to
the worldwide grain industry, and appears to be gaining little
acceptance in the market, U.S. industry players said.

On Tuesday Canada dealt a blow to Monsanto's progress toward
commercializing the product, when the Canadian Wheat Board asked the
company to withdraw its application for regulatory approval to prevent
"significant and predictable economic harm."

In the United States, biotech wheat could cripple wheat sales. Foreign
buyers have said they would be reluctant to buy from the United States
if so-called GMO wheat is grown here. Environmental and consumer
groups have recently increased their level of opposition to GMO foods,
raising consumer awareness.

"The marketing issues have not been sufficiently addressed. Prior to
commercialization of biotech wheat they need to be defined and acted
upon," North American Export Grain Association president Gary Martin
told Reuters.

Recently, U.S.-based food companies have begun spreading the same
message, telling farm groups they will not allow the wheat to enter
their grain elevators, flour mills or bakeries.

Betsy Faga, president of the North American Millers' Association, a
trade group, said that "Greenpeace and other activists out there on
this issue...could change consumer attitudes on a dime."

To soothe market fears, St. Louis-based Monsanto has pledged it will
not release biotech wheat until it identifies willing buyers.

Still, some say they do not fully trust the company and have yet to
see any aggressive moves by Monsanto to develop customer approval.

"Knowing what determines acceptance is the biggest problem," said the
Millers' Association's Faga. "This is one of the most difficult issues
to get our hands around."

Monsanto's herbicide-resistant wheat, grown in test plots in North
Dakota, Montana and elsewhere, has been modified to tolerate
glyphosate-based Roundup Ready weed killer, also made by Monsanto. It
is designed to improve efficiencies for farmers, yielding a more
profitable crop.

But farmers have not clamored for the technology. U.S. Wheat
Associates, which markets U.S. wheat overseas, has repeatedly warned
U.S. farmers that sales will be lost if the wheat is released into the
commercial market.

Parts of Asia, Europe and elsewhere have already said they would
abandon U.S. wheat if the GMO product comes to market. Wheat is the
No. 1 exported grain in the world.

"I think at this point Monsanto is saying they want to have the
scientific review take place, which they hope will convince consumers
and customers there aren't any health problems," U.S. Wheat vice
president Nelson Denlinger said.

Monsanto GMO wheat far from winning market okay

KANSAS CITY, Mo - A genetically modified wheat strain under
development by Monsanto Co. (MON.N) remains a significant threat to
the worldwide grain industry, and appears to be gaining little
acceptance in the market, U.S. industry players said.

On Tuesday Canada dealt a blow to Monsanto's progress toward
commercializing the product, when the Canadian Wheat Board asked the
company to withdraw its application for regulatory approval to prevent
"significant and predictable economic harm."

In the United States, biotech wheat could cripple wheat sales. Foreign
buyers have said they would be reluctant to buy from the United States
if so-called GMO wheat is grown here. Environmental and consumer
groups have recently increased their level of opposition to GMO foods,
raising consumer awareness.

"The marketing issues have not been sufficiently addressed. Prior to
commercialization of biotech wheat they need to be defined and acted
upon," North American Export Grain Association president Gary Martin
told Reuters.

Recently, U.S.-based food companies have begun spreading the same
message, telling farm groups they will not allow the wheat to enter
their grain elevators, flour mills or bakeries.

Betsy Faga, president of the North American Millers' Association, a
trade group, said that "Greenpeace and other activists out there on
this issue...could change consumer attitudes on a dime."

To soothe market fears, St. Louis-based Monsanto has pledged it will
not release biotech wheat until it identifies willing buyers.

Still, some say they do not fully trust the company and have yet to
see any aggressive moves by Monsanto to develop customer approval.

"Knowing what determines acceptance is the biggest problem," said the
Millers' Association's Faga. "This is one of the most difficult issues
to get our hands around."

Monsanto's herbicide-resistant wheat, grown in test plots in North
Dakota, Montana and elsewhere, has been modified to tolerate
glyphosate-based Roundup Ready weed killer, also made by Monsanto. It
is designed to improve efficiencies for farmers, yielding a more
profitable crop.

But farmers have not clamored for the technology. U.S. Wheat
Associates, which markets U.S. wheat overseas, has repeatedly warned
U.S. farmers that sales will be lost if the wheat is released into the
commercial market.

Parts of Asia, Europe and elsewhere have already said they would
abandon U.S. wheat if the GMO product comes to market. Wheat is the
No. 1 exported grain in the world.

"I think at this point Monsanto is saying they want to have the
scientific review take place, which they hope will convince consumers
and customers there aren't any health problems," U.S. Wheat vice
president Nelson Denlinger said.

GM wheat in Canada not an option, says Canadian Wheat Board

--------------

WINNIPEG - Adrian Measner, president and chief executive of the
Canadian Wheat Board, was cited as telling Reuters yesterday that the
group may consider legal action to stop Monsanto Co. from growing
genetically modified wheat in Canada outside limited government-run
trials, adding, "We've given strong assurances to our customers that
we will make sure this situation is resolved in Canada and we intend
to take whatever action necessary to do that."

The story says it is the strongest statement the board has made to
date on how far it will go to prevent GM wheat from being grown in the
near future in Canada -- and one Mr. Measner plans to repeat to world
wheat traders at an International Grains Council meeting in London
next week.

Mr. Measner was further quoted as saying, "Having it grown in Canada,
it's not an option. The costs are just too horrendous and it needs to
be addressed."

The CWB asked Monsanto to agree by tomorrow to withdraw its
application. It has not yet formally responded, he said.

Monsanto has promised it will not commercialize the wheat until at
least some customers accept it and until it can be dealt with
separately within the bulk grain handling system.

Even if Monsanto does manage to get a registration on this wheat, there's
no danger of any producers wanting to grow this stuff. I retail farm
supplies here in Saskatchewan, and also buy grain, as I manage a grain
elevator. 96% of the canola seed that I sell is R.R. Absolutely none of my
customers are interested in R.R. wheat. The primary reason for this is
because we have sufficient in crop pesticides to handle the weed spectrum in
a wheat crop. That, and having some great Red Spring Wheat varieties has put
the kaybosh to this technology before it has gotten off of the ground.



Dean







"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
GM wheat in Canada not an option, says Canadian Wheat Board

--------------

WINNIPEG - Adrian Measner, president and chief executive of the
Canadian Wheat Board, was cited as telling Reuters yesterday that the
group may consider legal action to stop Monsanto Co. from growing
genetically modified wheat in Canada outside limited government-run
trials, adding, "We've given strong assurances to our customers that
we will make sure this situation is resolved in Canada and we intend
to take whatever action necessary to do that."

The story says it is the strongest statement the board has made to
date on how far it will go to prevent GM wheat from being grown in the
near future in Canada -- and one Mr. Measner plans to repeat to world
wheat traders at an International Grains Council meeting in London
next week.

Mr. Measner was further quoted as saying, "Having it grown in Canada,
it's not an option. The costs are just too horrendous and it needs to
be addressed."

The CWB asked Monsanto to agree by tomorrow to withdraw its
application. It has not yet formally responded, he said.

Monsanto has promised it will not commercialize the wheat until at
least some customers accept it and until it can be dealt with
separately within the bulk grain handling system.

After a perfect year for wild oats in western Oklahoma Round Up Ready wheat
would find a place if it could be sold. Depending on custom cutter and
bigger combines have scattered wild oats every where and normal cultural
practices in wheat won't control them. It takes a long time in a summer crop
to get rid of the seed and only a year or two to get it back from the
ditches, combines and birds. Combines being the worst vector.

In my farming it isn't a problem as land is only in wheat as cover or
transition between crops for the most part. Neither wheat or cattle are
worth enough to make it interesting.

Gordon
"Dean Ronn" @home wrote in message
...
Even if Monsanto does manage to get a registration on this wheat,
there's
no danger of any producers wanting to grow this stuff. I retail farm
supplies here in Saskatchewan, and also buy grain, as I manage a grain
elevator. 96% of the canola seed that I sell is R.R. Absolutely none of my
customers are interested in R.R. wheat. The primary reason for this is
because we have sufficient in crop pesticides to handle the weed spectrum
in
a wheat crop. That, and having some great Red Spring Wheat varieties has
put
the kaybosh to this technology before it has gotten off of the ground.



Dean







"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
GM wheat in Canada not an option, says Canadian Wheat Board

--------------

WINNIPEG - Adrian Measner, president and chief executive of the
Canadian Wheat Board, was cited as telling Reuters yesterday that the
group may consider legal action to stop Monsanto Co. from growing
genetically modified wheat in Canada outside limited government-run
trials, adding, "We've given strong assurances to our customers that
we will make sure this situation is resolved in Canada and we intend
to take whatever action necessary to do that."

The story says it is the strongest statement the board has made to
date on how far it will go to prevent GM wheat from being grown in the
near future in Canada -- and one Mr. Measner plans to repeat to world
wheat traders at an International Grains Council meeting in London
next week.

Mr. Measner was further quoted as saying, "Having it grown in Canada,
it's not an option. The costs are just too horrendous and it needs to
be addressed."

The CWB asked Monsanto to agree by tomorrow to withdraw its
application. It has not yet formally responded, he said.

Monsanto has promised it will not commercialize the wheat until at
least some customers accept it and until it can be dealt with
separately within the bulk grain handling system.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:15:09 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

After a perfect year for wild oats in western Oklahoma Round Up Ready wheat
would find a place if it could be sold. Depending on custom cutter and
bigger combines have scattered wild oats every where and normal cultural
practices in wheat won't control them.

But you have Puma available to deal with wild oats in the growing
crop, haven't you?

It takes a long time in a summer crop
to get rid of the seed and only a year or two to get it back from the
ditches, combines and birds. Combines being the worst vector.

In my farming it isn't a problem as land is only in wheat as cover or
transition between crops for the most part. Neither wheat or cattle are
worth enough to make it interesting.

Gordon
"Dean Ronn" @home wrote in message
...
Even if Monsanto does manage to get a registration on this wheat,
there's
no danger of any producers wanting to grow this stuff. I retail farm
supplies here in Saskatchewan, and also buy grain, as I manage a grain
elevator. 96% of the canola seed that I sell is R.R. Absolutely none of my
customers are interested in R.R. wheat. The primary reason for this is
because we have sufficient in crop pesticides to handle the weed spectrum
in
a wheat crop. That, and having some great Red Spring Wheat varieties has
put
the kaybosh to this technology before it has gotten off of the ground.



Dean







"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
GM wheat in Canada not an option, says Canadian Wheat Board

--------------

WINNIPEG - Adrian Measner, president and chief executive of the
Canadian Wheat Board, was cited as telling Reuters yesterday that the
group may consider legal action to stop Monsanto Co. from growing
genetically modified wheat in Canada outside limited government-run
trials, adding, "We've given strong assurances to our customers that
we will make sure this situation is resolved in Canada and we intend
to take whatever action necessary to do that."

The story says it is the strongest statement the board has made to
date on how far it will go to prevent GM wheat from being grown in the
near future in Canada -- and one Mr. Measner plans to repeat to world
wheat traders at an International Grains Council meeting in London
next week.

Mr. Measner was further quoted as saying, "Having it grown in Canada,
it's not an option. The costs are just too horrendous and it needs to
be addressed."

The CWB asked Monsanto to agree by tomorrow to withdraw its
application. It has not yet formally responded, he said.

Monsanto has promised it will not commercialize the wheat until at
least some customers accept it and until it can be dealt with
separately within the bulk grain handling system.