Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Aug. 12, 2016)
August 12, 2016 CapitalPress.com 7 GE Wheat GE wheat discovery was reported June 14, APHIS says By MATTHEW WEAVER Capital Press Six weeks elapsed from the time a Washington state farmer reported the discovery of glyphosate-resistant wheat plants in a fallow ield and the time USDA made it public, according to a timeline the agency released. The farmer reported to USDA on June 14 that 22 wheat plants growing in a fal- low ield on his property sur- vived treatment with glypho- sate, said Ed Curlett, director of public affairs for the USDA Animal and Plant Health In- spection Service. On June 17, APHIS deter- mined the wheat was glypho- sate resistant. On June 23, APHIS, work- ing with the USDA Agricul- tural Research Service and the Online Farmers who suspect they have genetically engineered wheat in a ield should contact the APHIS biotechnology regulatory compliance hotline: http://bit.ly/2aAHXgY Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, conirmed the wheat was ge- netically engineered. After determining the wheat was genetically engi- neered, USDA laboratories ran speciic molecular tests to determine whether MON 71800 was present, as was the case in the discoveries of GE wheat in 2013 in Oregon and 2014 in Montana, Curlett said. After that test was nega- tive, APHIS began testing for different genetic “events” de- veloped by the Monsanto Co. in the past. On July 21, USDA con- irmed the GE wheat was MON 71700, developed by Monsanto and characterized as a “sister event” to MON 71800. “APHIS continues to re- search the issue to gather as much information about the in- cident as possible,” Curlett said. The agency is completing the testing of the farmer’s en- tire harvest for the presence of GE material. So far all tests are negative. The agency is delivering tests to trading partners as quickly as possi- ble. Because of privacy con- cerns, APHIS will not reveal the farmer’s name or the lo- cation of the ield, Curlett said. GE wheat appearance a mystery, experts say Lack of clues makes conclusions elusive, seed dealer, OSU researcher agree By MATTHEW WEAVER Capital Press Capital Press FIle Wheat is shown growing in a ield. South Korea has lifted the restrictions on its purchases of U.S. wheat now that the nation has a new test in place for genetically engineered wheat. South Korea lifts its restrictions on U.S. wheat Japan expected to follow suit by late August By MATTHEW WEAVER Capital Press South Korea has resumed normal purchases of U.S. wheat now that it has a test in place that can detect geneti- cally engineered wheat, U.S. Wheat Associates says. The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Ser- vice is investigating 22 genet- ically engineered wheat plants found June 14 in a Washing- ton state ield. The wheat is MON 71700, developed by the Monsanto Co. and used in trials from 1998 to 2001 but never commercialized. A farmer noticed the wheat after the ield was sprayed with glyphosate. MON 71700 wheat is resistant to the herbi- cide. South Korea was holding U.S. wheat from mills until the test, developed by Mon- santo and validated by USDA, could be put in place. The country will continue testing U.S. wheat, as it has since 2013, when a different Monsanto variety was found in an Eastern Oregon ield. The new test can detect both GE varieties. “We are very pleased that the test was available so quickly and that (the South Korea Ministry of Food and Drug Safety) deployed the test within just a few days to as- sure U.S. wheat remains safe and reliable,” said Steve Mer- cer, vice president of com- munications for U.S. Wheat. “Customers in Korea may re- sume milling and purchasing U.S. wheat with little or no disruption, as expected.” APHIS says there is no evidence that any genetically engineered wheat is in com- mercial U.S. wheat supplies. Genetically engineered wheat is not commercially available. “We think this adds con- idence in other markets that nothing has changed the U.S. wheat supply chain’s ability to deliver wheat that matches every customer’s speciica- tions,” Mercer said. Japan temporarily sus- pended purchases of Western white wheat, a blend of soft white wheat and subclass club wheat grown in the Paciic Northwest and sold to cus- tomers in Japan and Taiwan. Japan’s Ministry of Agri- culture, Forestry and Fisher- ies is customizing the test for its use. U.S. Wheat expects the test to be ready by mid- to late August. Mercer noted that Japan has four wheat tenders in August for October delivery, which leaves room to make up any difference caused by the disruption. Japan and South Korea rank irst and ifth among the top customers for U.S. wheat overall. Japan has purchased an average of 997,000 metric tons of white wheat each year for the last ive years, and South Korea has purchased an average of 679,000 metric tons per year. As the USDA continues its investigation into the appear- ance of genetically engineered wheat in Washington state, an industry oficial and a university researcher say too little informa- tion is available to answer the key question: How did it happen? A farmer reported 22 gly- phosate-resistant wheat plants on June 14. USDA determined that they are of Monsanto’s MON 71700 variety. Since then, agency investigators have been trying to narrow the list of pos- sible explanations for how the wheat, which was never made commercially available, could have turned up in the fallow ield. Three years ago, Oregon State University weed scientist Carol Mallory-Smith worked on the irst such incident, when a different variety, MON 71800, was found in an Eastern Oregon ield. A USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service inves- tigation was unable to pinpoint its source in that case. More GE wheat was found in a Huntley, Mont., research ield in 2014. Mallory-Smith is not in- volved in the current investiga- tion. “They have to be picking that seed up somewhere,” Mal- lory-Smith said. “And that’s the big question: Where was the leak in the system?” According to Monsanto, MON 71700 was tested in ield trials in the Paciic Northwest from 1998 to 2001. Mallory-Smith said the wheat seed could not have lay dormant 10 years in the ield where it was discovered. However, she said seed from those trials could still be via- ble, depending on where it was stored. “It doesn’t last in the ield for 10 years,” she said. “But seed stored properly could be 10 years old and still be viable. It’s coming from somewhere, but I don’t know where.” Dana Herron, a member of the Washington Grain Commis- sion and co-owner of Tri-State Matthew Weaver/Capital Press Dana Herron, co-owner of Tri-State Seed Co. in Connell, Wash., and a member of the Washington Grain Commission, participates in a discussion at a meeting in Spokane. Herron said he hopes a USDA investigation inds how genetically engineered wheat got into a Washington state ield. Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press Carol Mallory-Smith, a weed sci- ence professor at Oregon State University, says that without more information it’s impossible to determine how genetically engineered wheat got into a Washington state ield. Seed Co. in Connell, Wash., agreed. “Seed that’s been in the soil for 15 years, there’s a very inin- itesimally small chance it would be viable,” Herron said. “You’re talking about seven crop cycles and seven fallow cycles.” Herron also said it’s not like- ly the discovered wheat is a mu- tation or has evolved somehow. “That’s basically genetically impossible,” he said. “Some- where along the line, there is some human involvement. I hope the investigation inds the cause, because it’s extremely disrupting to the marketplace and the conidence of our cus- tomers, which we depend on greatly.” Some theories investigators will consider include: • An act of sabotage. “If you were to put me on the spot, and I had to pick a likely scenario, that would be the one that came to my mind irst,” Herron said. Mallory-Smith wonders what the motivation of a sabo- teur would be and how it would succeed. “I don’t know how likely it would be,” Mallory-Smith said. “I don’t know what the purpose of sabotage would be. Every- thing would have to be perfect for somebody to even report it. The person would have to have knowledge of farming practices that particular farmer was using. There’s all kinds of things that make sabotage seem dificult, at best.” • Spreading by wildlife, such as geese, deer or mice. “In my mind, that makes no sense,” Herron said. “I don’t think there’s any evidence to substantiate that.” • Accidentally falling off equipment. Without further information from APHIS, Herron is assum- ing the plants in Washington were all in a smaller area in the ield, similar to what happened in Eastern Oregon and Montana. The motions the wheat would have to go through make this scenario unlikely, he said. “It’s impossible that all those seeds ran out in one little area while the guy was seeding 500 acres, or 1,000,” he said. “Rules of probability tell me this is an artiicial thing.” Herron said it’s dificult to dispel or substantiate anything without more information. “We just don’t know the facts,” he said. “Until we do, all we’re doing is pouring gas on a ire, and I don’t want to do that. It’s so very dificult to come to any conclusions when you don’t know all the facts.” Mallory-Smith said she doesn’t believe that a lot of GE material is out there and un- known to the industry. There would be more complaints if it were, she said. “Now, seed somebody has or is storing, that’s anybody’s guess,” she said. “Maybe some- body has it and doesn’t even know they have it. It doesn’t look any different. Somebody could be producing it for what- ever and not actually know they have it.” Mallory-Smith said another possibility is the seed could have been in breeding stock some- where. How it could have been mixed into the production sys- tem is anyone’s guess, she said. “There was a lot of testing in the environment of that wheat years ago, which makes it very dificult to follow up or investi- gate,” she said. “Once the gene is put into the environment, you can’t expect that it’s going to go away, that you won’t ever be able to ind it again or that it would never show up again.” That’s the case for any type of crop, not just GMOs, Mallo- ry-Smith said. “If it’s another crop with a speciic trait, you put that trait out there, it’s not going to go away,” she said. “DNA doesn’t disappear, genes don’t disap- pear.” 33-1/#14