"Guidelines " for manipulation of Moter Nature

[parsley]

1. Was the loss of recent sales in the EU caused by Triffid?

2. Is the loss of market confidence caused by triffid/

3.Are future sales in risk because of Triffid?

4. Is the stellar Canadian flax reputation tarnished by Triffid?

5.If Triffid is as virused as growers claim, will the lontime established organic flax market be fatally wounded?

Who pays?

[oneoff]

I'll bet that flax is just being diverted to the US; who will with minimal testing be sending the negative stuff to Europe; and the rest will be used and crushed domestically. There will be wonderful profits on every bushel; and volumes just about normal for everyone. Only thing missing is a few dollars per bushel for the farmer (and of course some extra test costs, double or triple seed costs; loss of common seed option and hoops to jump through. Farmers should and could put a stop to this control of our livelihoods. I'll do my part, will you?.

[cpallett]

charliep,

In May of 1996, the CFIA authorized "unconfined release into the environment and livestock feed use of CDC Triffid" (see Decision Document 98-24 - 3rd paragraph, first sentence).

According to Barry Hall (Flax Council of Canada) and Mike Sheffield (CFIA) on the conference call it was an industry decision to request in the fall of 1997 that the CFIA deregister Triffid and order all existing seed crushed. Triffid was not deregistered by the CFIA until April 1, 2001 and all existing seed was ordered crushed at that time. 'Industry' has neither the power to order seed destroyed, nor the power to deregister seed. That power rests with the federal government, and the CFIA in particular, pursuant to a number of acts including the Seeds Act and the Plant Protection Act.

The expression 'tipping point' comes to mind.

[oneoff]

Surely every one could agree that the very least that should come of this is that the industry won't let this happen again with another crop. That is not at all evident to me that the industry has learned anything at all. Bring on Round up wheat and the alfalfa varieties et al. If the industry and regulators don't see that financial costs and unconvinced consumers are not as important factors as their biodiversity concerns; then maybe we need more common sense injected into their decisions. Just don't name farmers in the lawsuits. Some of us curse and swear on the stand.

[oneoff]

charliep..... don't stay out of this debate; get in there and learn like the rest of us. If you come to conclude that this Triffid matter was not handled at all well; then there will be ample opportunity for you to support the right thing to do; and thus make a positive contribution to a gereric problem that stares us all in the face.

[oneoff]

Dear Mr Lawyer:
Where a confined research field trial must be terminated, the applicant/Canadian Agent is responsible for the cost(s) of disposal of the PNT. Further more, the applicant/Canadian Agent is also responsible for the cost(s) of all remedial actions required in the event of an accidental release of the PNT.


Therare are two seperate sentences; and couldn't you argue that if only consequenes of field trial were at issue; that the CFIA "layer" could have saved several words by simply saying "disposal and remedial actions in the case of an accidental release of the PNT" At the very least the applicant was put on warning that they were responsible for release of the PNT. Who BUT FOR the same applicant (or I suppose their heirs and assignees etc) still owns Triffid

[cpallett]

oneoff,

The very least that needs to come out of this from my point of view is that the CFIA's risk analysis to determine whether a PNT or GMO (call it what you will) is approved for 'unconfined release' MUST include an assessment of the risks to the market of 'genetic drift' or 'gene flow'. It strikes me as fundamental madness that the regulator is not taking into account the potential practical effects on the farmers before authorizing the release of some new genetically modified plant.

What are they thinking? It has been 5 months now since the Triffid fiasco began and the CFIA has still not modified their procedures to include a risk assessment on the market in the PNT/GMO approval process. I repeat, madness.

Viterra and Cargill stand to lose millions along with Canadian flax producers. Certified seed growers may come out ahead, but the politics of requiring certified seed is not done yet. Not by a longshot from what I can tell.

The only clean and clear beneficiaries at this point are the testing labs. Is that who the CFIA is supposed to be working for? Madness.

[cpallett]

oneoff,

Nope. In the first place the release was approved, not accidental. In the second place the Directive you are quoting was not in force in 1996 when Triffid was approved.

No traction, nohow.

[charliep]

On the second last paragraph, I suspect the push to certified seed was by grain companies (who also sell certified seed). The policy has been endorsed by the Flaxs Council. Others will differ but the process at first blush is to reduce exporter risk that they will have triffid flax above allowable limits sold into Europe only to have the boat rejected at their port with no home. A 5,000 tonne hold in a ship put them at $2.5 mln risk plus demurrage and other costs while looking for a new home for the flaxseed. Solution right or wrong - that is open to debate.

Have talked to certified seed growers (some of whom disagree with the stated policy on must use certified seed)- they are in a predicament as well as what to do with seed that may or may not contain triffid. Many will choose to dump into the market/get out of producing foundation or certifide seed - too much risk. Anyone who continues to multiply seed will be at risk for the reasons oneoff stated. Any seed grower will be doing significant risk reward analysis with their flaxseed supplies.

[charliep]

oneoff

Your comment noted. I stay in because I find interesting. Hopefully I am a part of good debate.

My interests are how the issue is resolved so flaxseed can once again move to Europe unimpeded. Suspect their will be a way given the flax/linseed industrial oil needs access to our production. So if we assume trace amounts of triffid is here to stay, what is the solution?

The policy issues as we move forward on bio technology in plant breeding are also of interest. Some will say is letting the genie out of the bottle. Our competitors are using the technology in plant breeding so I don't want to tie our own breeders hands as they look at innovative solutions to everyday agronomic problems and consumer trends.

Example. Their is a more viralent (sp?) mycrotoxin in wheat/barley with fusarium head blight in the eastern prairies. The result would appear to be a significant tighting of grading tolerances around fusarium head blight damage kernels in the future. What plant breeding tools are needed in the tool box to deal with this? Some have asked for perenial wheat - what if the solution to achieve was transgenic one - inserting a gene from a closely related grass species?