Triffid Bites a Hunk out of Pocketbooks

[bucket]

yep, that's right parsley.

The first question I asked when all this started is why not crush the flax here in Canada and create opportunities. Instead tax money goes to develop another flax variety that causes a whole lot more problems.

Its idiotic. But then, so is using a coffee grinder to grind flax to start the testing of a sample. DNA can not be seen by the eye so they use something like a coffee grinder that can not be cleaned out to contaminate many samples.

[parsley]

They used a coffee grinder for your test?
LMAO
Oh bucket, that is soooooo funny. Pars

[wd9]

I hope you get paid per word parsely. OMG, i can barely keep up reading!

So it would seem it is a marketing problem rather then a production problem if the product is safe for FFE.

[parsley]

I don't get paid for any words. wd
Not a penny.
By anyone.
I write to please myself. Pars

[parsley]

You can indeed produce anything you want on your farm, but I would make it conditional upon you also being responsible for your production/invention, or alternately someone else has assumed ownership of it.
Responsible in many ways:

...ie Physically so your tethered flying dog doen't bite me;
....ethically so you are not transplanting live cow eyes onto the legs of your pet frogs;
...environmentally, so that Nature is not irreversibly transformed;
...and financially, so that Canada is not viewed in world markets, including Canada, as an unnatural, unsafe supplier of commodities.


Off the top of my head...I've prob missed some.

At the present time, Canada has okayed Triffid. I have to abide by Government decree.

Personally, my position is...and guided according to organic rules, I believe that adding any kind of chemical gene to flax will eventually prove deterimental to eaters. Read that again wd. That is MY position.

That is what organic is. Untinkered food.

And btw, I realize that this position is counter to Canada's legal position to endorse Triffid as safe.

Pars

[oneoff]

Apparently I still haven't gotten my point across that you can't lower the Triffid contamination level below the current sensitivity level of the test being used. That is why stupid statements about flushing Triffid contamination from the flax supply is utter nonsense. Not a soul has ever taken me to task on this statement. It's as though the industry doesn't understand this key point; and wishes not to debate this fundamental principle.
Come on and try to destroy my credibility; by clearly stating I am misinformed and clearly wrong on the impossibility of using current testing to eliminate the Triffid gene. I challenge you on this issue to prove me wrong; otherwise the right is reserved to question your motives; logic; intelligence; integrity; and right to speak on any farmer's behalf.
I'm ready to defend my statement; await some evidence that there is any hope for testing to decrease the Triffid testing to zero when tests can not even confidently identify samples which have 0.01% Triffid.

[oneoff]

And as for selling flax any time; anywhere in the world.
Not so; you've got to have it tested and sold before your test has expired. You've got to wait for the test to get back and that can take several weeks. And if you understand about the inherent problems with proper sampling; and the numbers of samples expected to be submitted for the number of bushels desired to be sold; and then the idiotic expectation that we have flushed the last trace of Triffid from the face of the earth;..............then it just isn't factual that you can sell your flax on a moments notice.

[charliep]

I don't think I have questioned your logic. It is in the system albeit at extremely low levels. The system is based on satisfying the number needs of the European Community and yes does involve risk.

[URL="http://www.grainscanada.gc.ca/statistics-statistiques/ecgwf-egcfb/2010/exports-exportations-10-07-eng.pdf"]page 11[/URL]

[oneoff]

There is a time coming where you won't be able to sell some lots of flax at all; if the industry is truly sincere about ridding the Triddid gene in flax supplies.
Thats because some day soon we'll be able to check for one rogue flax seed in a billion. Thats the first day the industry should be touting that we are Triffid free. That type of test is now reported to be possible for a single cancer cell in a billion of other cells circulating in anyone's blood stream.
And thats the day we'll have to admit that there is a little bit of everything in anything........because every flax sample is going to come back POSITIVE. Now I know that the industry can't comprehend what I'm saying; but I promise you that this is absolutely 100% true and can't be otherwise.
And its also the day that it will not be humanly possible to be careful enough to get a sample that probably will be not contaminated by the sampling protocol itself.
Consumers, buyers and farmers are being fed 100% B.S. The question isn't do we consider Triffid contaminated flax to be safe. How in heck is any ordinary person expected to have the slightest way to make that determination. It may well be safe; and possibly may be a serious mistake; but the only reason you want our opinion (after it is way too late to make any differnece regarding its release to our environment); is to spread the responsibility which rests with those who did allow its release.

[charliep]

On your last comment, your targets will be CFIA, Health Canada and Environment Canada. They had ultimate authority over the decision to release triffid. Everyone else had followed the rules through the 1990's until its release into the breeders seed multiplication system.

From the European Union standpoint, the issue is an unregistered genetic event. I am not aware (maybe wrong) that European Food Safety Agency reviewed or that triffid flax went through the political process to get a genetic event approved or registered.

How the genetic event got imbedded into flaxseed genetics is something that will be review for a long period of time.

[parsley]

Flax sample can be sent expedited, and it will come back in a few working days. Maybe not with the company you used. Also, if the test is negative, the reults can be forwarded directly to the buyer, so there is no wait.

I agree that fast testing is exoensive, and the testing expense is a result of someone else's downloading.

My point oneoff, was that crushers could crush Triffid grain?

Or SWP terminal at port could perhaps have made a deal with EU buyers to take the flax for industrial purposes? Or it could have to be diluted to certain tolerances if both seller/buyer agreed?

There is no point in banishing Triffid because it is GM, as it is only going to be replaced by another GM.

What would you propose for another crop like Buckwheat? What have we learned from this exercise, oneoff?
Pars

[bucket]

oneoff

You said "Apparently I still haven't gotten my point across that you can't lower the Triffid contamination level below the current sensitivity level of the test being used. That is why stupid statements about flushing Triffid contamination from the flax supply is utter nonsense."

That is why benchmarking becomes important. If you can prove that the number of positive tests have gone down or the level is less you can say the stuff is out of the system. But the flax council nor the industry started benchmarking because they thought they had rid the system of triffid 10 years ago.

But yes what is even funnier is they actually use a coffee grinder to grind the test. I have been to quantum lab.

Parsley, its funny because they could end up contaminating 100's of sample after a positive test shows up.

[parsley]

Did you question their procedures?

[wd9]

Oneoff, i agree with you and your point i believe is valid. Once 0.01% is achieved, 0.0001% will be required. Then 1 ppb then 1 ppt, then the excuse could be we suspect it may be there based on your export history.

This is a marketing problem, a big one.