The Montana Legislature will be asked to prevent the introduction of genetically modified (GM) wheat for commercial production until the state can guarantee that critical Pacific Rim grain markets won't be lost.

A second bill would impose a hefty bond on those wishing to introduce the grain.

The bills arise from the fear of some state producers that Montana's major crop will find no buyers in Asia if shipments are found "contaminated" with genetically modified wheat.

In a survey of Asian wheat buyers, millers and end users conducted by U.S. Wheat Associates, the respondents overwhelmingly rejected the prospect of buying genetically modified wheat. Even trace amounts of the genetically altered product in a shipment would result in rejection, the survey showed.

USWA is the promotion, marketing arm of the U.S. wheat industry.

Every year, at least 60 percent of Montana's wheat crop is exported through the Pacific Northwest to Asia. According to the Montana Department of Agriculture, Japan, the Philippines, Korea and Taiwan buy 93 percent of the state's exported wheat.

Cash receipts for all wheat sold in Montana ranged from $692 million in 1997 to $366 million in 2001, according to the Montana Agricultural Statistics Service. Crops diminished by drought and lower market prices in 1999-2001 have pushed down the annual income from wheat.

"We need to slow down, and take a breath" before introducing GM wheat, said Rep. Ralph Lenhart, D-Glendive. "Is Montana ready for it? The European market is not ready, and neither is the Asian market.

"We've been developing this (Asian) market for 50 years, so why shove something down their throat," Lenhart said.

Lenhart will carry a bill to place a moratorium on the introduction of GM wheat. "I may place a time limit on the moratorium." he said.

Compared to cross-breeding

Genetic engineering or modification, as compared to hybridization or cross-breeding, is the process of inserting genes from one kind of organism into the genes of an unrelated organism.

In the case of Roundup Ready soybeans and corn, the seeds contain genetic material that makes the plants resistant to the herbicide Roundup, thus reducing costs to the farmer for weed control.

Among the fears expressed in the USWA survey were concerns about health and environmental effects and that customers have not accepted biotech foods.

Monsanto, the agri-chemical company producer of Roundup, had indicated its intention to make Roundup-resistant wheat available in Montana and other wheat-producing states by 2005.

However, Monsanto representative Michael Doane said Roundup Ready wheat would be introduced only when several commitments are met.

First of all, Doane said it would be introduced when the food, feed and environmental safety of Round Ready wheat is demonstrated, resulting in regulatory approvals in the United States and Canada and Japan.

But that is not all.

Doane said: "The customer must be identified who will buy it. Not every customer will extend a preference for GM wheat."

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Big Sandy, will introduce a joint resolution that follows up on Monsanto's promises.

"This is the minimal thing that should be done," said Tester, Senate minority leader for the session. "Monsanto needs to keep its promise that no GM wheat will be introduced until there is market acceptance in the Pacific Rim."

Also among the commitments from Monsanto is that appropriate grain handling protocols and standardized sampling and detection methods must be developed and implemented by the grain industry.

Fears that grain shipments of traditional wheat cannot be fully segregated from GM varieties is the reason for the second bill.

Introducing a draft bill

A draft bill, yet to be introduced, would require any company holding a patent for a genetically modified wheat to post a $20 million bond before release for commercial production in Montana.

Rep. Christine Kaufmann, D-Helena, requested the bill draft, but she will not carry the bill. It will be introduced in the Senate when the prospective sponsor has completed reviewing it.

The bill provides that those who have lost a market because of contamination of their non-GM wheat could file a claim against the bond.

The impending legislation has sparked a diversity of views on the wisdom and need for it.

Dan Dutton, a Belfry farmer with a Ph.D. in chemistry, favors a moratorium on GM wheat production until it can be demonstrated that it can be marketed to other countries and can be segregated from traditional and organic wheat.

"A rush to market, this is arrogance," he said. "Our customers have said unequivocally that they will not accept it.

"We take pride in the quality of those products made in Montana. We need to take precautions that no farmer's rights or markets are lost."

But Lockie Edwards does not want farmers to lose opportunities either.

Edwards, the vice president of the Montana Grain Growers Association who farms near Big Sandy, said, "We would not be supportive of a bill that would discourage development of biotech products.

"Farmers did not get here by opposing progress," he said.

He warned that the policy on GM wheat should be a national one.

"Let's not get heavy-handed and pass piecemeal, state-by-state legislation." Edwards said.

Jim Christianson, who heads up the Montana Wheat and Barley Committee, said wheat is being held to a different standard.

"The four major Japanese brewers use GM yeast," he said. "The No. 1 laundry detergent there is GM.

Christianson said GM wheat is being used as a pawn for those who don't want competition.

"It's trade gamesmanship," he said.

Bob Quinn is a certified organic farmer near Big Sandy who grows specialty crops for the European market. He raises kamut, an ancient relative of durum wheat.

Quinn says he has a property right to be protected.

"My European customers are asking if I can guarantee the organic produce will not be contaminated," he said. "We need some research on the extent of contamination from pollen drift from GM wheat."

Doane said that Monsanto's research shows that wheat pollen drift is very limited, being less than 1 percent at one-foot distance.

Quinn also raised the issue of the cost of testing the product. "Who is bearing the cost? This is not just a problem for organic farmers."

He said the biotech industry should do everything possible to prevent contamination by breeding sterility into the progeny of the GM seed and have it color-coded for visual identification, which would eliminate expensive testing.

"This is not a health issue," he said. "It is an economic issue that will be on our backs."

Richard Owen, executive vice president of the MGGA, said the issues are national should be settled there.

"The are a lot of states that are nervous as hell about this," he said. "We need to provide a uniform regulatory environment for it."

For the plant scientist, the issue is not politics, diplomacy or marketing, but rather it is about producing food, said Luther Talbert, a spring wheat breeder at Montana State University in Bozeman who favors development of GM grains. He sees them as providing better profits for producers and more environmentally friendly production systems.

Doane said that Roundup Ready wheat may provide yield increases between 11 percent and 14 percent.

"Twenty-five years ago, when I was in school, we were warned that the world faced mass starvation," Talbert said. It has not happened, mainly because of the Green Revolution, the development of high-yielding, drought resistant strains of grain by Norman Borlaug, who received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.

"It does not seem right to me to take the major food crop of the world and not do our best to improve it," Talbert said. "I would not be happy 25 years from now if we did that.

"Rationality has to win out in the long run," he said.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **