Why EU Triffid Flax Trade Barriers ?

[LWeber]

OILWORLD - OCT 02 - A German publication

In European laboratories the GM material was identified as FP967 or Triffid, a flax variety introduced in the late nineties.However, a
recognized testing method is not yet available.

However, a recognized testing method is not yet available.

However, a recognized testing method is not yet available.

Doesn't matter to the tree-huggers; they have the media attention they wanted.

[Zaphod]

Come on. I've been agreeing with most of what you've said, but now you're way out on a limb. If incredibly sensitive testing can't find it, then it's not there. What, do we need parts per trillion? What about quadrillion? And your body will notice it? I don't think so.

But that's why zero tolerance is impossible, not just with GMO's but with any food safety issue.

The testing they've done with canola oil shows no traces. That's why canola oil was able to go into Europe long before the seeds were. Even the picky Europeans couldn't keep it out. And remember that 99% of linseed ends up in a non-food product. Does it really matter then? Of course I know what your answer will be.

[charliep]

Missed your question.

Your question - why didn't the EU approve Triffid
Flax??....thats the real question (one you haven't yet
asked)....is there a food safety issue we should
know about???"

Did anyone in Canada try to put triffid flax through
the EU regulatory system? From my sources (yours
may be different), the players at that time looked at
the cost/hassle factor and said it wasn't worthwhile
(something they are regretting) - just pull the
variety and move on. Triffid flax did make it
though the full Canadian plant with novel trait
process including health canada, environment
canada and the canadian food inspection agency.

Still curious on your comments on the health
benefits of flax in a diet versus the risk of some
unknown issue with whatever the level of
contamination of triffid flax is. Would I be better to
remove flax from my morning porridge or is it still
a healthy part of any diet? Of all the risks in the
food I eat (salt, transfats, ecoli, saminella,
microwaving in plastic, food additives, etc. etc. etc)
where does triffid flax sit as a risk factor?

[Zaphod]

After all, your argument (which I agree with) is that the customer reserves the right to say they don't like our product. Fine. So if they say they can't find any GM in the oil, you want to say it's bad anyway? That would be telling them they're wrong. That would be spreading fear with no basis in fact.

[Zaphod]

That's why the other people on this thread are asking who your visitors are. Are you trying to help resolved the problem or fan the flames?

[Jay-mo]

There are those who have their mind set no matter what proof to the contrary: GMO (at any ppm) is baaaaad!

The notion that the consumer is always right and we must do exactly as they say is fine. However, the organic/gmo=bad promoters have been working very hard to convince consumers that gmo, pesticides, fertilizers etc are very harmful.
So, the consumer is right if they like what I sell??

I see it all the time, the fear-mongering pointed towards gmo and pecticides, little if any science, and lots of what-if scenarios.

[charliep]

Jay-mo

Actually you have hit on one of the issues of the new technologies - the
organic industry does a better job of communicating with consumers than
conventional producers.

Found the following interesting from www.foodnavigator-usa.com.

“Knowledge about organic production seems to be the gateway to knowledge
about the other technologies,” they wrote. “Very few people knew about
biotechnology or irradiation if they did not also know about organic
methods, whereas many people knew about organic production who did not
know about one or both of the other technologies.”

<a href="http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Science-Nutrition/Education-
key-to-GM-and-irradiation-acceptance-Report">education</a>

[charliep]

[URL="http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Science-Nutrition/Education-key-to-GM-and-irradiation-acceptance-Report"]education[/URL]

[parsley]

Organics serve customers who buy food grown pesticide free, GM free, chemical free and have an audit trail.

They prefer local food.
They prefer buying as close to the farm as they can.
They prefer good tasting varieties as opposed to long shelf varieites.

Most of our personal customers drove to the farm.
Most of them were exceptionally well educated and higher income buyers.
That is their profile.

That is what they want.
That is what they pay for.

No matter where they live, this type of customer, in various parts of the world, that food profile is what they put their money on the table to buy.

50% pesticide free is not what they want.
46% chemical free is not what they want.
39% GM free is not what they want
90% auditable is not what they want.

You may not like this buyer.
You might even call him names, and call into doubt, the farmer who supplies him.

But he exists.
He pays well.
And farmers in Canada sell to him.

Not everyone fits into a slick good looking hightech biotech box.

And even if I'm considered dowdy and dull and not with the times, and distrustful of unintended consequences, other foodies seek out farmers who show concern for issues of food safety and locally grown and good tasting..... ie tomatoes, beef.

I do not regulate. I do not have an elected position. I do not work in committees behind closed doors.I have no influence!

What constricts entry to Europe is what someone else created. I didn't.

Not every consumer group is the same. That's the important part. Maybe consideration could be given all those who wish to buy. Not everyone eats beets. Pars

[parsley]

If I was better educated, I would realize that one great big huge mother grinder, one in each country,(resulting from a few mega mergers in the final analyses,) that would have a monopoly to ward off startups, of course, could supply cheap food to the entire world, provided all of it was irradiated, but then, my buyers are better educated than I, so perhaps they will understand more easily why they need to be educated to eat&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;EC_style8ptBK&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-whats-really-in-that-hamburger-youre-eating-2009-10"](your kind of food)[/URL]&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[mustardman]

I always thought "organic farming" was a bit of a misnomer. After all we lost a lot of organic matter from our soils from these practices which also gave us the "Dirty thirties" . Yes it was caused by the tillage practices of the time (organic farming) and yes we have had bumper crops on Less moisture than they had during that period

[parsley]

mustard, one group of farmers can criticize the other. We can bash away at each other. Waste of time, isn't it? Some want to concentrate on educating consumers, so go for it...btw, which ones?

What can go wrong if I also let the consumer educate me? Educate you? If he wants lilies instead of roses, listen to him. Or community butchers.

The world is large enough for everyone. And such little time to fight amongst ourselves.

Pars

[parsley]

I also reread Weber's post:

"is PN helping getting western Canadian farmer's flax moving?"

And although I highly doubt if anyone would be influenced by what I write, I also have to say my frustration with the flax shipments testing GM positive are obvious. If the current regulatory disorder has a negative effect on the future of established organic markets I'm not a happy camper, zaph. And I think that's fair.

But Weber's question also made me ponder if my frustration impacts on flax sales for other farmers, which I would not want, even if it was possible.

But I will file that thought when I am posting, Weber. Pars

[cottonpicken]

My fear for you,Pars,is that you are crossing a line.

You are mixing your own dogmas of health and nutrition into modern science and political warefare.

25% of my acres almost went into flax,but they didnt.

My imagination is broad enough to contemplate my actions/predicament if i would have,and feel the pain of those who did.

Thats why i would put somebodys head in a vice.

You are marginalizing yourself.

[DanHenry33]

Pars,

there is no "regulatory disorder", it is political disorder...the EU's regulatory system from the days of Dir. 90/220 to today's Dir 01/18 works fine except for the last step where political influence rejects the advice of the independent European Food Safety Author. because there is horse trading on votes.

On your suggestion that the EU consumer wants "wants lilies instead of roses", well, in the EU its not the consumer who has a say, its the big multinational retailers or political groups who refuse to give shelf space to GM products so in relaity the EU consumer never gets to choose at the point of sale. some respect for the consumer, eh?

On Triffid, in Dec 1998 there was an application to the EU (via the UK) for feed and food approval of Triffid flax...my sources say it was not approved but we do not know why?????...its time for an explanation as if there is a problem with Triffid on a food or feed safety point we should be told asap.

as for those forces against GM, well they have been fear mongering for over a decade now. They don't respect the consumer and have been stoking fear on the GM issue to flog organics, etc...but even the claims by the organic folks in the EU have been caught by the truth (e.g. no nutritional difference, etc) and a drop in sales have occurred (e.g. UK down nearly 30%)....as a reminder, I recommend this 2000 CBC video clip which stars the developer of Triffid...(i love the claim that GM will be no existent in 5 years)...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwE0cqdZWlY

p.s. Pars, you never answered my question....oh well