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