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

[charliep]

Will again do the civil servant soft shoe and let others answer. Would depend on the crusher is using simply cold press crush or a full oil extraction using chemical means.

[parsley]

It much better if farmers are active, willing, timely participant "mappers" for Events.

Farmers are on the front line.

Wouldn't an online map for each Event be ideal?

Also, people living in an area could add to it, observing things in their gardens or ditches.

Sign in, add observations and follow an event.

If the flax growers want to rid themselves from Triffid, don't they have to publicly map the infection and then ask for voluntary quarantine for a set time? Track it? ake it a team effort as opposed t a cover my ass fiasco? (Different leadership required, though) Right now, only a "few" have access to REAL info.

I find farmers amazing people to observe plants, are keenly interested in protecting their most important assett..their land, and also share info very openly Pars

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie,

Clearfield Canola is NOT transgenic. VERY Different than RR/Liberty tolerant Canola.

[oneoff]

I hereby retract that 2x4; withdraw humble pie from any menu; and agree to concentrate on the futility of the industry's and Flax Council claims about ridding flax supplies of the Triffid gene.

Today I have followed Pars's leads to the three links provided earlier in this thread. The first two links appear to me to be saying the same things as Western Canadian labs; ie test sensitivities in the order of detection levels of 0.01% GM flax. The second report adds that it is a moot point arguing about "quantification of gm-amount because it is not relevant for assessment in context of Article 4 para 2 of European Regulation (EC No 1829/200" but the report goes on to say that they "estimated amount of GM-linseed to be in the range of 0.1 to 1% and real time PCR tests for both construct specific tests in range of 28 to 32 indicating presence of (at least) 10 to 100 fold higher than limit of detection"
I interpret this to mean one tenth of 0.1% equals 0.01% and one hundredth of 1% equals 0.01% so they are talking about tests with the same 0.01% sensitivity limit that is being used in Canada.
As for the third link from University of Vechta; Germany; other than being the Chair of Landscape Ecology; the authors don't list credentials any more impressive than oneoff and wd9 et al.
The authors claim there are no exemptions in EU; even for minor traces; and that Triffid is present in even breeder seed of Bethune,Sorrel and Sanctuary. They say if enough samples are tested and if tests are sensitive enough; contamination is found to be widespresd. Then they go on to say that in many tests it is only present at 1 to 2 seeds per million. Geez: keep that 2X 4 handy; its needed again. How can anyone extrapolate to those levels of test sensitivity; for which there currently no tests existing?
Corrections 100% noted and accepted Pars. Those greater than 20 year old seed stocks are our greatest chance of reducing GM-linseed levels (but I never said reduced to zero percent). But what hope have we to protect >20 year old seeds from contamination with past; present and forthcoming GM flax varieties as well as "friendly fire" from the onslaught of GM reseach and release in every conceivable living organism.

Also sorry to mention that that even golden and yellow flax would probably show traces at parts per trillion GM material (assuming there were a test available). Even for the 0.01% tests the labs talk about "amplification" and "amplicons". I must do more research; but I suspect that you have to "grow" the minute amount of GM to a size where the DNA sequence can be detected and quantified. At parts per trillion you're talking extremely small amounts. Don't quote me on this last paragraph. You may need that 2X4 on me.

[wd9]

you are right Tom4, it's DNA scrambling. Crap shoot discovery. Infinitely better and safer and healthier then precise DNA snip and insert.

Parsely, way out to lunch with your comment. Nothing produced today are truly organic. Organics are a set of rules for those who want to market a product with certain characteristics. Follow the rules and voila its an organic product. Burning diesel and polluting the sky, not on the list, perfectly fine. Take from the soil not putting nutrients back, no problem. Get nutrients from manure that originated with fertilizers in another area and take those, no problem. Little check marks in a box for a few rules doesn't make a product actually organic Parsely. Its marketing.

Science will continue making new products and solving real issues in ag. Making some new ones probably too. Organic farmers will go on depleting their soil. Zero is unworkable for a marketing system like organics and real farming that feeds the world to coexist.

Science and modification of everything is not the answer and stop writing my opinion for me. You will never stop biotechnology from progressing.

Realistic tolerances for a real world are what is needed. Then you can keep telling yourself you grow a safe and healthy product good for the environment without the rest of us having to listen to it.

[oneoff]

Definition of Amplicon :

The product of PCR or LCR; a piece of DNA that has been synthesized using amplification techniques.

Definition of PCR :
A powerful method for amplifying specific DNA segments which exploits certain features of DNA replication. For instance replication requires a primer and specificity is determined by the sequence and size of the primer. The method amplifies specific DNA segments by cycles of template denaturation; primer addition; primer annealing and replication using thermostable DNA polymerase. The degree of amplification achieved is set at a theoretical maximum of 2^N, where N is the number of cycles, eg 20 cycles gives a theoretical 1048576 fold amplification. In addition to primers and DNA polymerase, PCR reactions must contain template DNA (the DNA to be amplified) and the DNA "building blocks", deoxynucleotide triphosphates (dNTPs, which include dATP, dTTP, dGTP, and dCTP).

So you see getting the right "snippet" (thats my coined word") is important; or else you've got over a million copies of bull shit that you are basing your test on. No wonder anyone ever attempts to explain how GM manipulation works.

[parsley]

Organic farming methods, even done with oxen in China cannot ever pose a risk as serious as the possibility of irreversible harmful genetic change to food.

A field can be revived. (Netherlands built new ground from the ocean.) Surely, a genetic modification that could cause a lifetime of damage cannot be a risk comparable to an agronomical practice, even by you.

It's been clear I acknowledge biotechnology is here to stay. My problem with the biotech industry has always been unintended consequences.

My issue is not with biotech crops that indeed are targeted for industrial uses, I've said it often, but with harmful modification to food.

There seems little concern from biotech advocates, such as yourself, to take cold hard look at food safety as the #1 priority, and it should be.

Paint for your floor is fine, but food for your family must come first; a concept many biotechies do not address.

If profit isn't biotech's main goal, then accountability, transparency and segregation should be headlining every webpage and be the highlight at conferences.

I note on Agriville, that many biotech supporters entirely avoid addressing the food safety issue. But it's there.

Triffid flax is a textbook example of how biotech ruined an established market, huddled themselves in obscuity so accountability could be avoided, and hunkered down in order to download the cost of covered up mistakes.

That kind of process is looked upon, in the world, as the classic shameless #1 f*ckup of Canadian agriculture, to put it exremely politely.

And you don't even know it.

It is also a snapshot of what biotech will do in the future because you have learned nothing from the past.

Tolerances so far, has put organic canola out of business and is putting organic brown flax into death throes.

You presume it is your divine right to decimate the livlihoods of others, and then continue to whine about increasing tolerances for your own markets.

Have you any notion of what co-existence requires? What meaningful indication has biotech shown that they have shored up segregation methods of crops at elevators, termimnals and ports?

Not only does organics require co-exist-protocol from biotech, but other countries demand it, which is why I posted the minutes above.

You may not like some countries' farming practices, or their way of doing business, but stuff it in your tax-begging craw, and concentrate on the fact there are others in the world besides biotech's vision of neutering everything except patented cloned food.

Parsley

[wd9]

Pages of posts won't change the fact that these systems and potentially others like pesticide free production need and will have to coexist.

Oneoff, hope i can throw this in. PCR is detection not manipulation of genes. That involves other methods like the gene gun for example, replacing a portion of the DNA just like a virus does in your body to give you the common cold. Quite organic in fact.

My girlfriend just did a course on using PCR in clubroot research and detecting markers for that. Complicated for sure but these disease markers and other event markers like triffid are easily done and are very accurate and highly detectable.

[wd9]

Parsely, this isn't a food safety issue. Its a marketing issue. Triffid is safe for feed food and the environment.

[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