"Guidelines " for manipulation of Moter Nature

[cottonpicken]

Did any one follow the link that europeans are not fond of gmos and seeing as flax goes to europe maybe common sence could prevail

[cottonpicken]

And did anyone follow the link that huge huge quanties will be sold in the future(just trust me on this)

And did anyone follow the link that this is the perfect moment in time for industry two strike and take our seed rights away fom us?

[oneoff]

cpallett It is there under http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dir/dir0007e.shtml Right near the end of the quote is the statement
"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.

The applicant/Canadian agent is defined at the beginning
PS Please note the similarities between the Chief Justices concise summary on liability (and even examples used of pertinent cases); and the Triffid incident along with CFIA guidelines and examples they give below. Coming from a lawyer; I would appreciate a "free" opinion about how "but for " ties into this soap story. No invoices need be exchanged. PS As you notice; the CFIA statements are directed to confined releases in a field trial context; BUT FOR this step Triffid would not have gotten loose. The rest is history. Thanks

. Definitions
Applicant: The applicant must be a permanent resident of Canada or must designate a Canadian agent who is a permanent resident of Canada. The applicant does not have to be the breeder or owner of the PNT, however, if the applicant is not the breeder/owner, a signed statement is required from the breeder/owner authorizing representation by the applicant or the designated Canadian Agent. All correspondence with respect to the application, including authorization of trials, will be addressed to the applicant, or when appropriate, the Canadian Agent. The applicant/Canadian Agent must accept full responsibility for compliance with all terms and conditions of authorization.

Application: An application is the data package submitted for each modified plant species intended for a confined release and which meets the information requirements of this Directive. More than one submission may be included in a single application.

Confined research field trials: A confined research field trial is the release of a PNT, for research purposes, under terms and conditions of confinement designed to minimize any the exposure of the PNT to the environment. These terms and conditions include, but are not limited to, reproductive isolation, site monitoring, and post-harvest land use restrictions.

Construct: An engineered DNA fragment (e.g. plasmid) which contains, but is not limited to, the DNA sequences to be integrated into a target plant's genome.

Field trial: A field trial is an experimental trial of one submission, grown at one trial site location for the purpose of conducting research.

For example:

a.Two different lines of a plant species, such as canola (Brassica napus), one showing tolerance to the herbicide sulfonylurea, resulting from the insertion of the gene coding for an altered acetolactate (ALS) enzyme, and the other showing tolerance to certain insects by the insertion of the d-endotoxin gene from Bacillus thuringiensis, both to be grown in the same field trial site location in one year will be considered as two field trials.
b.Two different lines of tobacco, both showing tolerance to the herbicide sulfonylurea, resulting from the insertion of two different genetic constructs, both to be tested in a confined research field trial site location in one year will be considered as two field trials. A separate assessment will be carried out on each of the two different genetic constructs.
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.
d.The same modified soybean to be tested at the same six general locations over two growing seasons will constitute 12 field trials
e.Perennial crop such as alfalfa, tested at one site over a period of several years, will be counted as one trial for each year it is tested.
Gene flow: The transfer of genetic material through interbreeding between sexually compatible plants.

Plant molecular farming: The use of plants in agriculture for the production of pharmaceutical or industrial compounds and not intended for general use as food and/or feed.

Plant with novel traits (PNT): is a plant that contains a trait which is both new to the Canadian environment and has the potential to affect the specific use and safety of the plant with respect to the environment and human health. These traits can be introduced using biotechnology, mutagenesis, or conventional breeding techniques and have some potential to impact weediness, gene flow, plant pest potential, non-target organisms, or biodiversity

Secure Container: Any means by which seed and any other propagable plant material may be contained for transport and storage such that a spill and/or dissemination cannot occur. The container must be labelled.

Seed: A "seed" as stated in the Seeds Act is defined as follows: Any plant part of any species belonging to the plant kingdom, represented, sold or used to grow a plant (Seeds Act).

Submission: A submission refers to each plant species/genetic modification combination. For example, two lines of the same plant species transformed with different constructs constitute two submissions. Two lines of the same plant species transformed with the same construct will constitute one submission, provided the two lines express the traits encoded by the construct in a similar fashion.

Trait(s): The phenotypic characteristic(s) conferred to the recipient plant by specific genetic changes.

Trial site location: A field trial or trials of a submission or submissions of a single species at a single location. Single location is defined as a single, unbroken geographical location.

Unconfined release: A release into an environment of a plant with novel trait(s) that is not isolated either reproductively or physically from managed or natural environments, but may be subject to other restrictions.

2 APPLICATION PROCESS FOR CONFINED RESEARCH FIELD TRIALS OF PNTs
The information requirements for the confined research field trials are described on the confined research field trial application form presented in Appendix 1. Application form must be completed in full to ensure timely evaluation and to minimize request for further information (must be provided in one of Canada’s two official languages; French or English). Application form for new confined research field trials and renewals of previously authorized confined research field trials of PNTs are required and must be submitted to the PBO for review in order to receive authorization for planting.

The applicant engaged in a confined research field trial must be a permanent resident of Canada or must designate a Canadian agent who is a permanent resident of Canada. The applicant/Canadian Agent must accept full responsibility for compliance with all terms and conditions of authorizations. 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.






NUFF SAID

[cpallett]

oneoff,

One clear problem is the quotation you provided: "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."

The Directive (Dir2000-07) this quotation comes from was not in force when Triffid was approved in May of 1996. I doubt it can be taken to be retroactive in force and effect.

Another problem you have correctly identified is that suing the University of Saskatchewan is sort of like suing your mother. Bad optics.

On the other hand, suing the CFIA is what I do best. Clearly, if the CFIA had considered that which they ought to have considered in 1996 (gene flow or genetic drift), it is highly unlikely Triffid would have ever made it to field trials and certainly not into 'unconfined release'.

No real causation problem there. Massive duty of care problems (proximity and policy issues - my wheelhouse), but not causation.

The good news is that the Krebs Cycle is still alive and well.

[charliep]

I should stay away from this because I don't know what happened and
second not a lawyer.

My understanding though is triffid had passed through the research stage
under the CFIA rules you site, had been approved as being safe within
Canada and was in the multiplication stage from breeder seed to foundation
seed and finally certified seed with it available to all farmers in Western
Canada at the next stage. There may still may be liability but there are many
other sources of contamination at the different stages of the multiplication
process. I assume through evidence would have to established at what point
the triffid gene entered the system.

It should be noted it was an industry decision to have the triffid variety
pulled - not a CFIA one. Someone can correct me.

[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?