Pinpointing Policy: What Do We Think About Biotech Wheat?
Author
Published
1/13/2025
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) on Aug. 27, 2024, announced it had approved Bioceres’ HB4® drought-tolerant trait in wheat for cultivation in the U.S., or more specifically found that it could “not identify any plausible pathway by which your modified wheat would pose an increased plant risk relative to comparator wheat plants,” and thus “is not subject to regulations under 7 CFR Part 340.” But ... don’t call your seed dealer quite yet. While the approval paves the way for additional research and field trials in the U.S., it will likely be a few years before we see it available to farmers here. Currently, Bioceres is working with the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation (who works with Kansas State University), developing seven breeding lines targeting both winter and spring, hard red wheat varieties.
In some ways, this delay gives us as farmers an opportunity to ask ourselves what we think about biotech wheat and examine Farm Bureau policy. Both Kansas Farm Bureau (KFB) policy Biotechnology AG-11, and American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) policy 337 / Biotechnology, are supportive of the safe and effective implementation of biotechnology and the export of biotech products. In fact, AFBF policy 252 / International Trade, line 4.4.4 states that agricultural exports will be increased by, “Immediate, unrestricted trade and distribution of U.S. approved biotech products.”
Clearly, better drought tolerance would benefit wheat growers by offering more stable production year-in-year-out, and as a result, greater income for farmers and more exportable U.S. supplies. But are consumers on board?
KFB policy Biotechnology AG-11, under we support, states, “Maintaining U.S. export markets by securing foreign regulatory acceptance of biotech products.” AFBF policy 252 / International Trade, line 7.8 reiterates this point and goes on to state, under we support, “Sellers of agricultural products enhanced through biotechnology should assume major responsibility for this acceptance. Extra efforts should be made to make farmers aware of markets where the products are not accepted by using such methods as color markings on bags, boxes or bulk delivery systems and/or seed tags.”
While Bioceres is working to gain approval in several countries, staff research suggests that currently, only 10 countries have approved Bioceres' HB4® drought-tolerant wheat in some fashion. Four for food and feed use, Australia, New Zealand, Nigeria and Indonesia. Six for food and feed use, along with approval for cultivation, including the U.S., Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, Paraguay and South Africa.
But again, are consumers on board? According to USDA, the world’s largest wheat importers include the region of Northern Africa (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia), with 2024/25 projected imports of 32.4 million metric tons (MMT), followed by the region of Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam) at 30.05 MMT, the Middle Eastern countries of Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia, who are projected to import 18 MMT collectively, China (11 MMT), Bangladesh (6.9 MMT), Brazil (6.2 MMT), Nigeria (5.5 MMT) and Japan (5.4 MMT). Of all these wheat-importing countries only three, Indonesia, Brazil and Nigeria, have approved this biotech wheat. This might be a good reason for a slow approach.
Members are encouraged to examine all our Farm Bureau policy regarding biotechnology and biotech commodities as there is much more than listed in this brief. A few policies include KFB policy Biotechnology AG-11, along with AFBF policy 337 / Biotechnology, which under we support states:
7.4. Active involvement by the United States in the development of international standards for biotechnology.
7.5. Harmonization of international standards for biotech, testing and adventitious presence. The international bodies established to administer the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement of the World Trade Organization should retain the authority to influence the regulation of international trade in agricultural products enhanced through biotechnology.
7.12. Establishing domestic low level presence standards for biotechnology, including maximum acceptable levels.
7.13. Developing standards for trading partners for the testing of low-level presence of biotech events that are not acceptable so that other products can move in the trading market.
337 / Biotechnology under we oppose: 8.4. Split registration or limited use registration of seeds enhanced through biotechnology. Producers should seek and seed companies should provide adequate and accurate information on acceptable markets and market restrictions in writing to producers prior to the time they purchase the original input product. Adequate and universally accepted testing methods for biotech adventitious presence in seed should be established. Seed that is approved for restricted use or controlled distribution should be labeled and have visually distinguishing characteristics. FDA should set acceptable standards for determining what is non-biotech. Standards governing the identification or availability of biotech products should be established uniformly across the United States.
360 / Plant Variety Protection Act, 4. Farmers should be allowed to save and replant biotech seed by paying a minimal technology fee on saved seed.
252 / International Trade, 9.8.4. Ensure market access for biotechnology products.