"Guidelines " for manipulation of Moter Nature

[oneoff]

Anyone run across the "guideline" book that tells reseachers the lines they mustn't cross? Or is it the registration level that we rely on to protect us from allowing anything that can be done; to be done. Also where do we find the policy and regulation book that those "bureocrats" live by?

[oneoff]

Can't even spell Mother or bureauocrats; it sure is lucky I can add with a calculator.

[cpallett]

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dir/dir0007e.shtml

[charliep]

Here is the European equivalent to the above.

[URL="http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/food/l21154_en.htm"]EU[/URL]

Would take some looking but likely could find the same things for the US (world biggest user of
GE technology) and Australia (very quickly moving into biotech).

[charliep]

Australia/New Zealand. Found a better site but slow down loading.

[URL="http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/"]australia/new zealand[/URL]

[charliep]

GMO in the US at least from the Environmental Protection Agency. Not
able to find the US legislations side.

[URL="http://www.epa.ie/whatwedo/licensing/gmo/faq/"]us[/URL]

[charliep]

Oops. Should have read further. Above for ireland not US. Will have to google
some more for relevant US legislation, regulations and policy.

[charliep]

Try this link US.

[URL="http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&navid=AGRICULTURE&conte ntid=BiotechnologyFAQs.xml"]us[/URL]

[oneoff]

I followed the link to the |CFIA website and now know we are talking about plants with novel traits (PNT) . In the guidelines there are a lot of "not recommended"; "are encouraged" and "as possible"'s.
I didn't see any mention of required warnings to moose, elk or deer, or other wildlife; at least not until after the project is harvested and the residual plant material disposed of.

Under field trials there is the example
"c.Flax modified to be resistant to a specific herbicide as a result of one specific gene insertion, to be tested for agronomic performance in confined research field trials at six locations will be considered as six field trials."
The experiments require an applicant/Canadian agent to make the submission and makes them responsible for abiding by the rules for the field test; and that they "are reponsible for all cost(s) of all remedial actions".
In all probability this can be taken literally and refers to an actual 6 test locations of field trials involvig Triffid flax. Anyone know where they were? Is there any correlation of contamination levels focusing around these sites?. At least provide the information to confirm that such risks are not certain problem causers.
Are the applicant/Canadian agents still around to take any responsibility for problems that might crop up?

[cpallett]

oneoff,

You asked for the current guidelines. The decision to release Triffid was made im May of 1996 under an earlier set of guidelines than those found in the link I provided. The 'example' cited in the directive to which I referred you to does not reflect reality to my knowledge (as with much federal government work).

The link to the actual decision document allowing for unconfined release of Triffid is:

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dd/dd9824e.shtml