Agriculture is a business. Farming without a financial motive is gardening.

[cottonpicken]

I wonder what the battle cry would be if EVERY single
person involved in ag had to give up a proportional
amount of their pay checks.

Funny how most of the straw ends up on the average
farmers back,not so funny when that back finally
breaks.

[Kodiak]

Right on wd9! The baseless arguments and intellectual dishonesty around the GM flax issue are astounding. The sight of the "flax industry" leaders all rushing around trying to appease a bunch of protectionists and political opportunists is sickening. Building an industry on that kind of basis is a recipe for stagnation and failure. Until a new approach emerges based on sound science and a solid marketing approach, the flax industry will continue to portray itself as and be nothing more than a sad collection of individuals who have proven themselves to have no vision, no leadership, and no future.

Right now, the image of the flax business that I have running through my mind are re-runs of Abbot and Costello or the Three Stooges. Except not nearly as funny.

[oneoff]

Tom and Charlie: Take your blinders off. You can tell yourselves and everyone else that you have a negative test that makes that sample and thus your seed or commercial flax Triffid free. Further you may even have widespread agreement that what you say is indeed a statement of fact.
Even with you; the testing lab result; and maybe even the vast majority of the population agreeing; you are deceiving yourselves and others. Read this carefully and tell me I am wrong. If I'm not wrong then you know what real men do.
Before you do any meaningful test you must collect an accurate sample if you want to extrapolate the conclusions to the much bigger lot you are really interested in. Then you must brinng yourselves to think of the Triffid tests as simply tests for traces of GM material. Admit that 0.1% is just a trace; 0.01% is a trace; now you are talking 0.025% which is just a trace. And make sure to keep that sample from which your past and current negative test results were drawn. Assume that up to the present all tests from that samples have indeed tested negative. Now I say you have hastily and unthinkingly concluded that your sample and your larger seed lot are "Triffid free"
If you agree that Triffid contamination is widespread; and at trace levels; and could show up in the most unexpected samples; are you going to be a little nervous when the next future more sensitive test (say 0.001%; or 0.0001% or 0.0000000001% sensitivity) is run on your previously tested negative sample which may only have had a sensitivity of say 0.025%. The future test could very well be positive. Why does this have to be pointed out to two of the supposedly clearer thinking posters on this site.
It is just wrong and foolhardy and plain stupid to be talking about Triffid free until the last Triffid seed has been disposed of. That can't be done; never will be done; and again just can't be done unless every single flax seed is disposed of; or tested to make sure that it isn't a Triffid offspring.
Again I challenge you and anyone who makes Triffid free statements.
And charlie; before I ever make my suggestions about handling such serious problems; don't you think that it would be important to have agreement with you on such basic statements as have been mentioned above.
Some statements should stand on their own without any need for debate.
But for those industry players who can stand some fresh ideas; contemplate on the posts of others just above in this same thread. I'm with them; and suspect you fellows should quit chasing Triffid free; because the idustry solutions could never accomplish that goal; and further the industry and regulators have staked our future on GM modification of every combination imaginable.
Give me some unarguable arguments regarding my analysis; or else please quit your sales pitches for the industry. You gain your credibility on future issues through your past positions on issues such as Triffid.

[oneoff]

Sorry; missed a zero in 0.025%'s above.

[oneoff]

Tom: You say don't blame the seed grower. Well when someone still says their seed is Triffid free (and there are seed growers who are saying that in printed advertisements); should those seed growers not be blamed if it ever turns out that their product is not indeed Triffid free.
What a setup for a false advertising claim; when I would think an equally effective claim of "Negative Triffid Test at 0.0025%" would convey all the necessary GM contamination information.

[Choice2U]

The thing I hate about "Do you know who grows your food" implies that if you don't, your being negligent and cannot trust our food safety system. I believe governments should promote a safe food system that feeds the masses and avoids starvation issues as opposed to Obama's garden which implies an unsafe food system.

[charliep]

Perhaps we can agree that Canada can never make the claim to have triffid free
flaxseed. If we accept that, what are the next steps?

I note wd9 suggestion. Perhaps this is the solution.

[oneoff]

Agreed charlie. And each time we hear this Triffid free nonsense; we must each challenge it vigorously; because saying it politely just doesn't seem to get the point across. Perhaps more important is the associated change from industry and government spokesperson who suggest, direct and force the paths we must follow. They should be responsible for the decisions they force us to make.
THE NEXT STEPS (in my opinion) are to give up on the policy of appeasement on this GM issue (for cases such as Triffid which can never be undone). For the cases of GM wheat and alfalfa etc. etc. etc. which possibly are not yet loose enough to have widespresd contamination; much different tactics should be employed. The regulators and accountable researchers and promoters of those products have to be willing to take on the financial costs of legitimate damages to such sectors as organic production; and unforseen disasters that are bound to occur. The creators of the product are entitled to the rewards from their products; and should be responsible for the safety and liabilities as well. Otherwise they are not yet ready to be entrusted with what they have created.
There is just a trickle of this new GM technology let loose compared to what may yet come (my opinion is that it is sure to come; and its will happen very prematurely). Those creators and promoters may well be too impatient to handle it responsibly. The rabid "environmentalists" on one end and the irresponsible regulators; promoters from industry and even excited,( but myopic )researchers at the other end of the spectrum are not the minority who should have been making the decisions about this new technology. This technology must have significant overall benefits for society; and be handled with extreme care and safeguards. If the Europeans; or any other customer doesn't buy into those benefits; then it is foolhardy to try to force someone else's opinion on them. Closer to home; the same principle applies. There should be no right to destroy the old ways of production; because it may well turn out that we will need that old technology as well in the future. Lets not forget that there are huge business opportunities for this new technology; and destroying the current production system is very good for those positioned to support the new GM technologies.


Its the consumers and farmers (which also include seed growers such as Tom ) who live with reality; and their and our lives and financial interests should have been protected from the very beginning. If more or larger problems are created than solved; then what is being gained.
That brings me to my final point of this post. If the main purpose is to attempt to feed and sustain 9 billion people; then it is long past the time to further stress this planets ability to sustain even the current population; which is obviously too many already. There is absolutely no need for human reproduction to continue to expand to the point where a major correction will happen because of that population increase.
Of couse we should also first agree on that being one of the primary problems. Are we agreed on that point too?.

[samhill]

Flax from here goes south of 49. U.S. exports of
flax have increased spectacularly. So, we just have
another middleman. The flax still gets sold.

[oneoff]

Is it possible that as the masses befome even more distanced from their actual food production sources; that consumers develop the quaint idea that their highly preferred food comes from across the laneway; in a garden they can keep an eye on. Then they can feel extremely comfortable; because they naively think they know exactly how it was produced.
Of course the flax seed most likely is subject to the same possible Triffid contamination as any organic farmer or large scale commercial farm; the soil might have even higher selenium levels than where the majority of food really comes from (in Western civilization at least). For all they know, maybe there is more mercury residues or paris green or Love Canal deposits than most places in a Sask grain field; but no one would ever question a garden would they. Then those same people regularly dine out and eat "unhealthy" foods while enjoying the good life of the developed world and expect to live to 150 with absolutely no health problems.
I guess its too bad that in developed countries life works like that. Maybe ignorance is bliss after all.