Wheat research advocated Dan Biggerstaff doesn’t like the term GMO (genetically modified organism).

“I like the term genetic engineering because it is true. It implies that you thought about what you were doing,” Biggerstaff said. “Genetic engineering is trying to put something in place that has a purpose for use.”

Biggerstaff gave his views on biotech wheat during a presentation at the recent Williston National Hard Spring Wheat Show.

“I also don’t like the word debate,” Biggerstaff said in describing the discussion revolving around biotech wheat. “It is a divide.”

Biggerstaff is a retired wheat breeder who said the biggest issue is the wheat industry needs to get better educated. “We don’t do a very good job really, we really don’t,” he said of education. “Globally, we need more wheat. We need more efficient wheat production.”

Biggerstaff said more foods are made with wheat than any other cereal grain. In seven of the past 11 years, the world has consumed more wheat than it has produced, he added.

A self-proclaimed friend of wheat breeding entities, public and private, Biggerstaff said there is a lot of new interest in wheat breeding.

“One person or one group is not going to get all of the answers,” he said.

Wheat breeding is a numbers game, Biggerstaff said, as the more crosses you can make, the better chance there is you are going to find what you are seeking.

Wheat breeding now includes what he calls nondestructive wheat analysis, where a piece of a wheat kernel can be sliced off.

“You can check the DNA in that piece through this automated analysis. You can look at 10,000 kernels, save the 100 you are interested in and go forward,” Biggerstaff said.

“Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist’s View of Genetically Modified Foods,” is a book co-authored by Nina Fedoroff, who passionately argues there are some things that require genetic engineering.

“Are GE crops safe to eat? It depends on who you ask,” Biggerstaff said. “Are there risks? Absolutely. No one says there are not unintentional consequences.”

The idea these genetically engineered crops are not tested also “is rubbish,” he said. “The overwhelming evidence is those that have been approved are safe.”

He said people object to the idea of the “mutations” that are part of genetically engineered crops.

“Are mutations always bad? How about dwarf wheat? What do you think that is,” Biggerstaff said. “That is a mutation. But that is how breeding is accomplished.”

He also creates a huge distinction between organic and natural.

“You are growing (wheat) in a monoculture. That is not natural in any fashion,” Biggerstaff said. “I think it is good we have harnessed agriculture. But don’t come along and say it is unnatural. Everything we do is unnatural.”

He said grain producers who question or object to the idea of genetic engineering or organic need to look at what the criteria are for these processes. That criteria includes produce abundant, safe and nutritious food, reduce harmful environmental inputs, provide healthy conditions for farm workers, foster soil fertility, protect genetic diversity and improve the lives of the poor and malnourished.

Biggerstaff added the idea that multinational corporations force farmers to buy specific patented seed offends him.

“That implies that I’m stupid. You’re producers, you’re businessmen, you make the decision what you want to produce,” he said. “No one forces anybody to buy something they don’t want.”

Biggerstaff encouraged the audience to first read the book “Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics and the Future of Food” by co-authors Pamela C. Ronald and R.W. Adamchak. He then said to read “Mendel in the Kitchen” and then “Seeds of Deception” by Jeffrey M. Smith, which claims to expose industry and government lies about the safety of genetically engineered foods.