Triffid Bites a Hunk out of Pocketbooks

[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.

[charliep]

On your comment on lentils, there are genetically modified lentils on the market today. Clearfield lentils were developed using mutagenesis - the evil genetic engineering. Europe plant breeders are using mutagensis in developing new varieties and as more is know about genes, even more in the future.

Just curious if biotech is being used more in the future, what is the organic industry doing to manage its risk? I assume the very least will be to monitor and perhaps even regulate seed supplies.

[parsley]

Well, shall I presume, then, you long for the good old progressive days when we would continue to eat beef fed with ground up cows, because to question the process, and consequences/results, is such a waste of time, and besides, "somebody will pay for it if we hide under an anonymous corporate number, anyhow", and "my gosh, only a % of Canadians die, sogood riddance"

Process is so pure. pars

[parsley]

"if biotech is being used more in the future, what is the organic industry doing to manage its risk"

Isn't it interesting how manipulators move the risk from 'biotech's risk', which it is because it can cause unintended consequences, so that it all of a sudden becomes "organic's risk" :< o

Don't you just love sheer audacity?

Pars

[charliep]

so the organic industry is doing nothing. does the dog wag the tail or tail wag the dog?

[parsley]

Since you ask about:
"plant breeding and who pays, sets priorities, monitors, manages risk, benefits, faces legal liability"

ould we agree that the present process has not worked and will not work in the favor of farmers?
Farmers pay for research, they are poised for paying for "weed" pollution, and environmental damaage.(ie some re-designed plant crosses in the wild, goes amuk and blocks waterways) But has the so-called profit reached the farmgate profits?

In the future if there are additional unintended consequences,as it now sits, as in Triffid which is an economic market loss, who will pay, according to the precedent set?

if all buckheat crosses in the fields and becomes modified,, who pays for the loss of organic sales' premiums?

Some biotech companies manage risk, but for WHOM?

Biotech companies tramp fields looking for illegal seed, buit how about illegal weeds in an innocent bystander's field?

No one is looking out for the everyday ordinary conventional farmer it would seem. Pars

[parsley]

Who should pay in court? The dairy industry farmers or the company who adds melamine?

[parsley]

Let's start with government from

https://www.agriville.com/cgi-bin/forums/viewThread.cgi?1292694371

also to address wd's question

The Federal Government had a rep sitting at the flax Council's table:

I don't know if thios is the same one or not, as I didn't bother to look it up in my files. But let's say he is:


Observer
Federal Government

If he didn't know that overseas flax shipments tested GM Triffid positive at port, he is stupid.

if he didn't follow it up overseas to find that shelves were stocked with Triffid contaminated flax, and therefore it had been going on for a long time, he is stupid.

If he didn't act as an independent Testing regulator, he is crooked, either because he looked the other way or because he is protecting a government who is not acting as an arbiter d'independent.

If there were no published public consequences for corporate cheating or seed grower cheating, or testing cheating, whichever it may have been, take your pick, every last member of the Flax Council should have insisted that the process for discovery and punishment be made public, and available to farmers.

Or resign.

Was Justin Sugawara( or his counterpart if he was not the rep at the time) actually fired?

Who can tell me?

Farmers need to have accountability or we 'll have land expropriation in every province, grain expropriation.

NO ONE stands up for farmers. And I get pissy. Pars ,

[parsley]

Who should pay in court, you ask.

Prairie wild rice farmers or the biotech company who supplies them fortified rice seed, which happens to end up stacked with both progesterone and estrogen, but whose flour supplies baby food processors?

Farmers will pay for research, get the bill for contaminated food, lose markets and sales, and forevermore, their WILD RICE LIVING WILL BE MUCKED UP because it has crossed in the wild.

"Who cares", the rest smile so sweetly. "We'll move on to next fortifying with B Vitamins. Now we have it right, dearie" pars

[parsley]

"so the organic industry is doing nothing."

Actually charliep, when you are an organic grower and you cannot reconcile
(Previous Year Inventory) plus
(Grain Harvested) plus
(Grain Sold) plus
(Screeings) Plus
(Seed Used)

and all of them Equal:

(Inventory on Hand),

Actually, charliep, a grower then becomes de-certified as an organic grower. So thatprocess addresses cheating.

And we don't genetically modify crops at all, so we do not have a pollution problem that originates with us.

Our flax must now be tested for Triffid, which should never have to be part of Organic's cost because organic never allowed or condoned it in the first place. We could only catch somebody's Triffid flu. Nice cost offloading trick, huh?

For the sake of fair-play, I should get to say....

"so the pedigreed seed industry is doing nothing"

The prevention of GM cross-pollination hasn't worked for either canola or flax breeder seed in the reports I've read. Pars

[charliep]

So you are saying golden rice (not released into the market yet) has contaminated wild rice?

As at least one of you heard at a presentation I made at the ABC annual general meeting, genetic engineering is just one tool in the plant breeding tool box. There are many others and the list is growing. Perhaps a more important issue is to create an environment where R. and D. will be done in western Canada based on a well thought out regulation.

To that end, I should highlight a mistake/let out word in a previous post.

Clearfield lentils were developed using mutagenesis - NOT the evil genetic engineering.

I correct myself because I don't want to leave anyone with the idea that mutagensis/Clearfield poses a risk. Mutagensis again is just a tool to be used when appropriate.