Triffid Bites a Hunk out of Pocketbooks

[parsley]

You are very careful about what comes out of your mouth charliep, so yes, down the road, you may indeed, want to be careful about what goes into your mouth if gene stacking in food becomes a diagnosable symptom.

Will flaxA x flaxB x flaxC x flaxd produce stacked genes:

New and improved modified flax fortifed with iron, crosses with 2012 flax fortified with VitA/iron, crosses again with the that rogue flax in dave's bin from the 2012 VitB12/iron fortified flax that crossed with Triffid.

Curb it?. Or cleaned up? Or taken back? And the companies all changed their name? And the Flax Council is holidaying enmasse in Hawaii?

And charliep presents symptoms of 'poorly-bound iron'.

It's all iffy and unknown and unlimited and man doesn't have one clue what Nature does or does not do.

We've all endured the attitude of perfected Science. ie:

"Take a tablespoon of estrogen daily and you won't have a heart attack."

Uh huh

charliep, would you believe:

"Take a tablespoon of progesterone daily and you won't have a faint heart." Pars

[charliep]

Perhaps you are right. You have always avoided the question about whether including flaxseed in my diet is a good thing and whether the health benefits of Omega 3 out weigh the risks of triffid flax. In fact, what is it in real terms that makes flaxseed a health risk?

I note the reference to canola oil (from genetically engineered canola seed) and its lower level of transfat/use in deep frying. Does this pose a health risk? Do the benefits of lower transfat out weigh the risk of genetic engineering (keeping in mind oil has only limited genetic materiall in it)?

[charliep]

Perhaps even more interesting, why just highlight flaxseed/Flax council? Sugar beets? Alfalfa? Canola? Corn? Soybeans? Wheat?

[parsley]

Flaxseed as Nature made it, imho,has fabulous enhanced-health properties.

Flax is good food. Good for horses, too.

Grind it,... a common way to change flax, and all of a sudden it becomes vulnerable to rancidity and all of a sudden flax has a shelf life.

Modified with the taste of cardoman, the consistency of mushrooms, the color of saskatoons, and the size of plums, it is no longer flax,though, is it? Nor would I advise you whether to eat it or not.

What we do with food, how we change basic food, should undergo vigorous scrutiny. It's common sense. Surely.

Burning steak until it is charred, produces side effects proven not so healthy.

Eat what you choose, charliep. Pars

[charliep]

We all have different perceptions about the risk of biotech.

We also need to be aware of other trends and issues. I note that issues around cereals/molds are likely to come more to the forefront. Fusarium graminearum/link to DON and mycotoxins. Ochratoxins and tighter buyer specifications. U99 and the impact on production if established in the northern (shameless plug for a presentation at Farm Tech).

From health Canada.

Mycotoxins are another group of natural toxins. The word mycotoxin is derived from the Greek word for fungus 'mykes' and the Latin word 'toxicum' meaning poison. Mycotoxins are toxic chemical products formed by fungi that can grow on crops in the field or after harvest. The foods that can be affected include cereals, nuts, fruit and dried fruit, coffee, cocoa, spices, oilseeds and milk. There are now more than 300 known mycotoxins of widely different chemical structures and differing modes of action - some target the kidney, liver, or immune system and some are carcinogenic. Common mycotoxins include aflatoxins, ochratoxin A, ergot alkaloids, fumonisins, patulin, trichothecenes (such as deoxynivalenol which is also known as vomitoxin) and zearalenone.

[parsley]

Risk should be borne by whom, though?

And that was was point of this thread.

Triffid was a risk.

The inventor, simply put, didn't give a damn. He was mostly paid by University tax dollars-once-removed.

Seed Triffid growers/owners were irresponsible but have avoided accountability, as sleeze often does.

Flax organizations were all too keen to download the cost of failure and irresponsibility upon ordinary common everyday farmers who got blindsided.

So, is it that the flax organizations, who will soon be peddling an 'improved' modified flax, need to "soothe" potential convenentional flax farmers looking to buy seed?

BUT, the Canadian taxpayer, (through a program which ends up dispensing its' dollars for genetic cleanup instead of for legitimate ventures it was originally created for) is stuck with a dunner for mistakes by those who avoid all responsibility.

The industry does not move forward through innovation, because forwardless thinking risk takers now need to wipe its' polluted ass that can only move backwards, with taxpayer and farmers' dollar bills.

Yes, this is the kind of planning we are headed for, with absolutely every grain unless blinded planners are replaced; until governments stop spending tax dollars frivolously; and until, in the minds, and thus in the interests of agriculture:

1. reward is tied to loss
2. risk and responsibility is tied to ownership
3. deceny is tied to ethics.

In my very, very, very, humble opinion, charliep. Parsley

[wd9]

Is triffid flax considered safe for feed food and the environment in Canada?

[charliep]

To follow up with wd9, you do accept that if the genetic event around triffid had been registered in Europe and Japan, we won't be having this conversation?

[parsley]

Answer: Triffid was indeed deemed safe by Canadian officials... in writing.

But is it?

Question: I ask you, in the case of "a safe, official Canadian stamp of approval" as happened when feeding cow offal back to to cows (a % risk-decision, right?, which is based upon the precise science ..."What the hell only a percentage of Canadian assholes will die, so it justifies the economics") ,...If that decision was overturned, because the science was indeed flawed and its' backflush is/was the sick and the dead, er, who pays?

Pulses...
If lentils are modified, and somehow, contaminate sales; sales which are conditional upon non- modidfied lentils....who pays?


You are more than eager to talk about the importance of risk and the benefits of it. But I would like to talk about and establish responsibility for LOSSES if the risk goes sour. Loss of sales. Loss of health. Loss of life.

Otherwise, when there are losses, farmer goats are sure to get dumped on again. And both of you should be well aware of the fact there is bound to be risks that go bad, and that we must provide some way to offset them without running to the government, or farmers.

I believe the reward side has been studied broadly, widely, horizionatally, and in every dimension including the hereafters' estates.

Pedigreed seed prices from the seedy crowd have been calculated well in advance, wouldn't you say?

This is the OTHER side. The Far Side. The RESPONSIBILITY side. Such a novel idea for virgin planners, it could be fun. Pars.

[charliep]

Which I guess brings us back to the questions about plant breeding and who pays, sets priorities, monitors, manages risk, benefits, faces legal liability, etc. Most of our competitors have processes and answers around these questions. Canada (at least on cereals and some of the alternative crops) seems to be stuck in the never never land of indecision and on going navel gazing/remembering the good old days. I would argue this is one of the reasons we are losing competitiveness relative to other major grain exporters. Lucky with flaxseed because at the end of the day, western Canada is one of the few areas of the world that produces it.