EU Triffid (zero tolerance) vs. Negative Triffid Test Result vs. Consequences for All Crops

[parsley]

Sloppy Triffid protocol produced harmful consequences. "a marketing issue" is your excuse.

Contaminated pedigreed Bethune,Sorrel and Sanctuary seed stocks sprinkled with Triffid isn't exactly JUST a marketing problem is it? Liken the spread to Aids.

A flawed process encompasses more than marketing.

Biotech players have not appreciably mended the sleezy process in which segregation of Triffid was ignored. Testing was either incompetent or dishonest. Disregard for compliance. Communications furtive. Integrity suspect. Reputation tarnished. Conduct unbecoming. Logic flawed.

And disregard for harm caused is firmly instiutionalized.

Without Biotech's irresponsible players and leaders making a committment to address a deeply flawed process, another diaster is waiting to happen all over again... is guaranteed to happen. It could be a natioanl food safety disaster issue.

Surely the arena of improvement doesn't have to be a legal one, does it?

You have ability wd. So, get off your lazy ass and pull up your socks and improve the Biotech process, Parsley

[wd9]

Parsely, where is the proof for your statements? Triffid is safe. The canola in Canada produced is safe. Don't lie to make your industry more profitable. Nobody wins that way.

[parsley]

Is fear percieved or does it have substance? In this morning's Food Navigator, which is a publication for business, listed the following four links, highlighting the safety issues Parsley Inc. must check today that might impact on the products I sell in my factory, if orginating from these four problems:

http://www-t.decisionnewsmedia.com/r/?id=h1c4cf4fa,6d8d89f,6d8e985&p1=DCtI7hVoersDVVwwd wgVfA%3D%3D

http://www-t.decisionnewsmedia.com/r/?id=h1c4cf4fa,6d8d89f,6d8ea1a&p1=DCtI7hVoervyZ2AiN 30wrA%3D%3D

http://www-t.decisionnewsmedia.com/r/?id=h1c4cf4fa,6d8d89f,6d8e983&p1=DCtI7hVoersmm5yRn fjpgA%3D%3D

http://www-t.decisionnewsmedia.com/r/?id=h1c4cf4fa,6d8d89f,6d8ea18&p1=DCtI7hVoertBlNxvu ucmUQ%3D%3D

These are not merely marketing issues, or else a name change would suffice.

Good mangaers know that the real issue, the issue of priority, is the safetey issue. Pars

[parsley]

If you looked up the link to plastic bags, did you ask why a change is being made? What brought about a change? Is it a marketing issue, or a safety issue? Was the science 'right ' in the first place. or was science it flawed? or worse, was science fudged/ignored/ ?

Global change in bagging? A marketing problem, is it, wd?

"BRC reveals key changes to Global Standard for Packaging
Post a commentBy Guy Montague-Jones, 11-Jan-2011

Related topics: Legislation

Additional safeguards to reduce the risk of chemicals migrating from inks in packaging to food products are included in a new edition of the British Retail Consortium (BRC) Global Standard for Packaging.


Changes to Global for Packaging include new measures to combat food packaging migration threat
Ahead of the publication in February of Issue 4 of the Global Standard Packaging and Packaging Materials, BRC revealed a list of some of the key changes in the new edition.

These include the introduction of new safeguards to protect against the migration of chemicals from packaging into food products.

This comes as scientists raise the alarm over the potential problem of mineral oils in inks finding their way into packaged food.

In particular, the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Germany has expressed concern that mineral oils in recycled cardboard, thought to accumulate from newspaper ink, could migrate in “relevant quantities” into carton packed foods.

List of main changes

A full list of the changes to the Global Standard highlighted by BRC is given below:

Preparation and planning section, providing guidance and support for sites new to the certification process
Additional safeguards to reduce the risk of chemical migration, such as by inks, from packaging into food products
Introduction of “fundamental” clauses, relating to systems that are crucial to the establishment and operation of an effective packaging manufacturing operation
Introduction of a grading scheme based on number and severity of non-conformities
Audit frequencies and processes for corrective action that reflect the company’s audit performance
Simplification to two product categories, high risk and low risk, based on the hygiene requirement of the final use of the packaging materials – for example a food wrapping is high risk, the packaging round a kettle or toaster is low risk
The BRC Global Standards, which were first introduced in 1998, are designed to give retailers and manufacturers confidence that suppliers are following all their quality and safety standards and are meeting all legal requirements.

Global Standards

Talking about the packaging standard, BRC technical director David Brackston said: “They open up new markets for packaging suppliers who can promote themselves to customers who are looking for independent endorsement of suppliers’ operations.”

After the new issue of the standard is published in February, audits on it will begin six months later to give companies time to become familiar with the requirements.

BRC published three other standards that cover food safety, consumer products and storage and distribution. Currently more than 15,000 factories in over 90 countries are audited to the Global Standards. "

[charliep]

Not sure on the relationship between the dioxin issue in Europe and triffid flaxseed/biotech.

The articles highlights the issues around food safety and ability to track/monitor. It may be over time that the level of testing and traceability needs increase in general.

[parsley]

Did you notice the words in the plastic bag article the phrase:

"scientists raised the alarm"?

One could rag, "Where the hell was the inital alarm in the first place?" but in defense of science itself, its' disciples' understanding of science sometimes only pops up waaaaay down the road.

Will canola discover problems down the road? I hope not. But what are the chances there won't be safety/health problems?

Listeria iS real. BSE is real. Science argued that the process was safe. Science argued that the risk % was scientifically safe. It wasn't.

Which is why process is important in biotech. Plastic bags became a food issue.

Segreation. Audit trails. Compliance. etc.

Too many responsibilities in the process are absent. Some are abused. Some are ignored. Food safey today requires a transparent workable process, where recall couples with containment.

Triffid throughout the world is NOT retreivable.

But like plastic bags, if down the road, "scientists raised the alarm" and Dr. Eureka determines Triffid, or any Event has become an alert food issue, process is crucial.

Changing bags is an easy fix for food safety. Mapping and bagging Triffid's kin is not Pars

[charliep]

As a consumer of agricultural products, I perhaps have a different view of risk than you do.

For example, the issue of dioxins in packaging is a risk factor. Solmonella and e coli from improperly handled food are risks which no one can assign zero even under the cleanest preparation conditions. I recognize the risk as a consumer, manage it as best I can and am prepared to live with what I can't.

I might note the introduction biotech crops are among the most evaluated and monitored areas of food there is - by the time it has cleared hurdles in Canada, the European Food Safety Authority, US FDA or whatever, Japan protocols, etc., there has been significant due diligence. You may want to add other criteria in terms of monitoring but I suspect is held to a higher standard than packaging.

Relative to other risk factors in food, I suspect triffid content of flaxseed is not something that will impact my health and perhaps including flaxseed in my diet will actually improve it.

But maybe I am wrong.

[wd9]

Dioxin, toxic. Inks seeping into food, toxic. What is your point? If i dumped radioactive sludge from a nuclear plant on my barley before i sent it off to market it would be.... toxic.

Triffid is safe for food feed and the environment. Dioxin is not safe. Packaging has inherent issues due to chemical processes to derive those products. But the food approved and grown here in Canada for production here in canada is safe.

Your fear mongering by supposing "what if it turns out to be bad" or comparing toxic chemicals to safe and healthy food produced in this country does no good whatsoever for this industry. This isn't even a discussion anymore, its lunacy.

[ianben]

BSE did have a big consumer reaction in
UK and Europe which perhaps was not seen
in Canada.
We had ten years of assurances from
government, even had minister Gummer
feeding his daughter a burger, on how
beef was safe. Then the admission in 96
that it could be transmitted to humans.
This was the situation in which GM was
launched and trust in governments
scientist and food producers was at an
all time low.
Even though the BSE scare was, it
appears, over hyped no one in EU sees a
need to experiment with GM while food is
still plentyful and cheap.

It is not just GM, pesticides in water
are an issue here no tolerance is
allowed. If a pesticide can be found
above minimum levels equivalent to one
grain of wheat in 300tonnes the it will
eventually be banned. Lots of the most
used cheapest are already gone. Obvious
really the most used ones will be found
but no relation to toxicity.

However it is really a marketing
issue,you must produce what your
customer wants not what you say he
should have. I no longer produce any
beef if I was in Canada I dont think I
would still be growing linseed/flax

I dont see GM here till food is ex-
pensive and in short supply.

BSE has a lot to answer for. The thought
of feeding food to your children that
could damage their brain and kill them
is still what people remember.
Food safety is number one any risk is
unacceptable.

[wd9]

And yellow seeded organic flax causes breast cancer. It might be true. So in the mean time i'll just say it does.

[parsley]

Haven't heard from you for a long time ianben. Nice to hear from you. And interesting comments on the BSE.

I have been told by a professional, that there are sealed, steel "storage buildings" containing killed BSE bovine, because GB couldn't dispose of them quickly enough so they binned them. Heard anything? Pars

[parsley]

You stamp your feet, wd, and screech "It 's saaaaafe!!

However, not all countries, and not all consumers, and not all farmers agree that approved GM Events are safe in spite of the fact that you proclaim they are.

Countries and systems who view GM unsafe are just as legal and just as valid as the juridictions who do.

Get used to it.

Some producer organizations cite food safety as their objections to GMO.

Some countries openly cite safety in their objections to GMO

At the Standing Committee on the Food Chain held in Brussels on 9-10 February 2010 , Austria's wrtitten declaration reflects their skepticism with GM corn:

"a. The risk assessment which has been carried out is not suitable to give a scientific proof for the safety of this product: This concerns in particular the poor quality of molecular characterisation, insufficient testing of potential fusion proteins, poor quality of testing agronomic traits and compositional analysis as well as of the environmental risk assessment. No information is provided whether the levels of endocrine disrupting agents
like tetrahydrofuran-diol and leukotoxin-diol were altered in the double stack. Also the intended monitoring plan is not regarded as state of the art. Furthermore a post-marketmonitoring plan is regarded as essential but not provided by the notifier.

b. As long as no official (guidance) document on the interpretation of detection results of the described methods for stacked events are available, no approval for placing on the market of this product should be given." unquote

Are Austrians lunatics, too? Are their citizens lunatics ?

What about dissenting Belgium at that meeting?

"-Evaluate the allergenicity of the whole GM maize crop
-General surveillance to follow up unanticipated allergenicity aspects since the allergenicity of the whole GM maize has not been tested"

Lunatics?

The Committee in Brussels discussed the concerns:

"The following considerations were mentioned by Member States as reasons for not supporting the draft Decision:
- the EFSA opinion is not considered as fully satisfactory;
- the absence of a scientific opinion on environmental risk by the national scientific assessment body;
- Regulation on GM food and feed is not considered as the right legal basis to authorise products other than food and feed containing and consisting of GMOs;
- the negative public opinion with respect to GMO;
- the absence of agreement for the quantification of stacked events;
- other political reasons."

"Negative public opinion", Did you catch that ianben? Pars

[parsley]

About Creeping tolerances:

EU required 100% GM free flax.

Now, as a result of biotech, industry tries to negotiate tolerances higher, saying "It's safe it's just a marketing issue!"

When Canada and EU settled its' WTO squabble on GMO's, Canada whined and got 0.9%, tolerance levels for three canola events present in oilseed shipments, to remain in efect until 2012.

Flax will also probably creep to 0.9% because there is no co-operative aim to work towards segregation of GM grain from no GM grain.

Biotech continues to negotiate higher and higher tolerance levels for registered events, and aims to do so for all crops, imho.

This creeping tolerance by Biotechies, shows an absence of co-operation between the two points of view. GM and nonGM

It reveals that food safety views or food safety issues,(which could liken to BSE which is NOW internationally dreadfully real, as ianben reminds us), are not taken into consideration by the biotech view. Pars

[parsley]

"b. As long as no official (guidance) document on the interpretation of detection results of the described methods for stacked events are available, no approval for placing on the market of this product should be given."


This one is MY personal bugbear,

Stacking.

And farmers will be blamed for harvesting crops testing positive for stacking....and if industry has its' way...farmers will be liable and foot the bill for harm IMHO.

Unless of course, there is a new policy this month that charts GM stacking responsibility for safety and environmental and marketing harm. Did I miss it? pars

[parsley]

Well well well, somebody else is thinking about the liability chain.


http://www.cropweek.com/agenda/seed.html

Don't worry about a thing. You'll be well looked after, boys. Pars