Monsanto Co.’s decision to withdraw its genetically engineered wheat hands opponents of transgenic foods a victory.

Reaction among many North Dakota farmers, how

ever, was a mixture of relief and disappointment involving a crop with a value of $1.25 billion.

On the one

hand, many farmers are relieved that a premature release of genetically modified crops won’t scare off markets.

But many also are disappointed that new technology is on hold for at least four to eight years.

Monsanto is halting plans to develop spring wheat resistant to its Roundup herbicide.

“I think they made the right decision,” North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson said Monday. “There was clear customer reluctance around the world to genetically modified wheat.”

Because consumer resistance to genetically modified crops -- especially overseas -- was so strong, many North Dakota farmers worried they could lose important markets if the “Roundup Ready” wheat is released before it wins greater public acceptance, he said.

Johnson said he supports biotechnology as a means to develop better and more economical crops, but genetically altered wheat shouldn’t come before market acceptance and a wheat-handling system that can segregate genetically altered nontransgenic crops.

“The ability to segregate wheat is not here right now,” Johnson said.

Neal Fisher, administrator of the North Dakota Wheat Commission, said Monsanto has given assurances that it still plans to pursue new wheat varieties through biotechnology.

“I think it’s important to note that Monsanto is saying the door is still open,” he said.

Wheat growers are heavily dependent on export markets. Roughly half of North Dakota’s wheat crop is exported

each year. Therefore, farmers and food processors are very sensitive to the demands of consumers in Europe and Asia.

“What they fear most is brand recall, that there’s panic in some market,” Fisher said.

That’s exactly what Gail Wiley, who farms near Montpelier, N.D., fears.

“I think that the introduction of genetically modified wheat would have been disastrous for North Dakota, because so many of our customers have told us they don’t want it,” she said. “Almost universally the message is don’t introduce GM wheat.”

Wiley is a member of the Dakota Resource Council, which has actively opposed the introduction of genetically altered crops.

“It’s just been a huge win,” she said of Monsanto’s decision. “I don’t think it will hurt

the biotechnology industry. I think it will force them to proceed with respect for all the parties involved, including the farmer and customer.”

Janet Jacobson, an organic farmer near Wales, N.D., said there are too many unknowns to warrant release of genetically modified crops. Jacobson and many others worry that genetically modified crops inevitably will spread, as pollen drifts in the wind.

Researchers don’t know, for instance, how wide a buffer should stand between fields of conventional and genetically altered crops.

“I don’t believe anybody in the consumer market has asked for this,” she said, noting most traits enhanced through biotechnology are for farmers, not customers.

The Rev. Karl Limvere of Medina, N.D., is the chairman of a committee that is spon

soring a measure to slow, if not stop, the introduction of genetically modified wheat. The Go Slow with GMO Committee is working to collect 12,844 signatures to get their proposed measure on a ballot, possibly in the Nov. 2 general election.

“My initial reaction is that it reduces some of the initial urgency of the measure we’re working on,” he said. The proposal would require an independent, fact-finding committee of experts and at least one public hearing before farmers could plant genetically altered wheat.

“There still is a need for a process,” Limvere said. “Despite that decision there’s still a concern of how do we regulate this in the future and what tools do we give the regulators.”

Ken Grafton, head of the experiment station at North

Dakota State University, said Monsanto’s decision to table its genetically modified, herbicide-resistant wheat program will have only a minor effect on research at the university.

NDSU is a partner in the Roundup Ready wheat research, but it involved only a small fraction of two researchers’ work, Grafton said.

“Obviously we’re disappointed, but we’re disappointed only in that we’ve invested time and energy into this project,” he said. “It’s obviously a business decision by Monsanto. We respect that business decision.”

Perhaps consumers will be quicker to embrace genetically engineered traits when they plainly benefit consumers, he said.

“We understand the concerns of the marketplace,” Grafton said. “If the concerns

are valid or not, we still have to respect that. We’re not going to do anything that would affect a market in this state.”

John Mittleider, vice president of public affairs for the North Dakota Farm Bureau, said Monsanto’s decision is disconcerting because it will mean a delay in bringing improvements to wheat that now are available to growers of corn and soybeans.

“The wheat sector just hasn’t kept up with some of the other commodities,” he said. As a result, North Dakota farmers are turning more and more to crops like corn and soybeans, and away from wheat.

“One has to ask the question, what is the landscape going to look like down the road?”

Readers can reach Forum reporter

Patrick Springer at (701) 241-5522