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

[wd9]

Yellow seeded organic flax causes cancer.

[wd9]

So why is mutagenesis, the scrambling of DNA using sequencing and knowledge of the genome, considered natural organic and holy while transgenic is evil deadly and unsafe Parsely? Both systems utilize the rewriting of TCGA strings in genetic code. Both occur in nature. Both scientifically can have unintended and unintended causes yet each have very different registration schemes.

[parsley]

Choice is nice isn't it.

There are two systems...GM and non GM. wd, and one system is not your choice. It's my choice. So, get over it, and throw out practical solutions for co-existence,

"Given the EU is a large importer from North America it is incumbent to develop and analyse a system that conforms to EU traceability.

European Union (EU) legislation allows grain from countries using GM seed under restrictive conditions.

Measures of control and regulation for GM products include testing, tolerance, shipping,and segregation strategies.

Labeling is required for products containing more than 0.9 percent of GM material while EU traceability provisions were initially optional, they are now mandatory."

Read it again. There are some regulations that need to be respected!


http://www.gmcc-09.com/wp-content/uploads/1-anderson.pdf

There is a Presentation by Laura Andersen at the Canadian Grain Commission tracing IP wheat/human error.

"This suggests that each participant in the closed loop IP system must be held liable for the costs of leakages for which they are responsible in order to ensure that effective risk mitigation measures are put in place and the conventional value chain
is compensated for the market harm risks."

And I will add: "to ensure that effective risk mitigation measures are put in place and the organic value chain is compensated for the market harm risks."

See what I mean? 2 systems.

This pdf is an interesting read. Pars

[parsley]

Just so both of us understand understand both arguments...this says it succintly:

"Although tests in the USA have not revealed safety problems deriving from GMOs and GM ingredients in food products, the acceptance towards the application of GM technology in the agro-food sector is still low in the EU - especially among German consumers.

In the opinion of most European consumers there is nothing to gain by
GMOs, but instead serious disadvantages could occur (Evenson et al. 2004; Gaskell
2006).

But for the profitability and the development potential of GM food consumer acceptance is a determining factor"

Profit is a reason, I agree. pars

[charliep]

parsley

I assume by GM, you are very specifically referring to genetic modification/transgenics. Europe is far greater user of biotechnology than Canada in broader sense of all the tools in the tool box. I would highlight the investments WGRF is making and suggest that technology is widely used in Europe. Way more than in Canada if for no other reason their plant breeding programs are way better funded (yes via private sector and with a profit motive). I would also suggest the Plant with Novel Trait regulation is at least as stringet as anything that Europe has to offer - maybe more. The difference is on policy toward genetic modification - the inclusion of DNA from another species in the plant breeding process.

[charliep]

The last sentence should refer to genetic engineering. Too easy to hit send.

[parsley]

We read about "novel traits" in every paper and ad and article, these days don't we. Coincidence?

Click on:

http://www.gmcc-09.com/wp-content/uploads/poster_17_524-zapilko_klein_menrad-2.pdf

Scroll to:

2. Consumer acceptance of GM food products and
preference heterogeneity

Read this section 2

Have a question for you to think about, lol....cott, you'll like this one:

Have biotech changed tactics and now promote novel traits in order to more effectively herd consumers towards GM market acceptance? Pars

[ianben]

See US has its first home grown case of
BSE would GM ever have been released if
this had happened 20 years ago?

Pars
Think all BSE remains have now been
incinerated, happens about 5 miles from
where we live, delivered in sealed
trucks and tipped through air locked
doors.

Perhaps overkill in hindsight but a
justfied reaction to the hysteria BSE
creates worldwide.

We may produce commodities but they
still need to be marketed and that means
giving the customer what he wants.

MacDonalds didnt try to sell British
burgers here but imported Dutch beef for
years.

[wd9]

To reiterate Charlies point, the difference is policy. Not science. Not food safety. Not common sense. Nothing that makes an industry stable. A few writings on a piece of paper easily changed at the whim of those controlling it to manage the price.

Parsely, the best answer you can come up with the hit and miss outcome unknown organic method of mutagenesis being safe and pinpoint accurate gene splicing not safe is because someone wrote a policy and just says so? OMG!

[charliep]

Way off flaxseed but parsley's questions make me ask more questions.

The only traits I am aware of that have been introduced into canola via transgenics/genetic engineering (trying to clean up my own terminology) is herbicide tolerance. Likely working on other agronomic traits like fertilizer efficiency, drought tolerance, etc. Consumer traits like lower trans fats have come in via conventional breeding or some of the new plant breeding technologies (not GE) that use knowledge of the canola genetic system.

[parsley]

Shouldn't segregation and protocol be the subject of co-existence instead of arguing about whether organics's rejection of food modifiction is legitimate in your eyes?

Canola can persist in soil for several years and produce volunteer canola in succeeding crops.

Surely you will accept when EU posed a recent problem with GM in their mustard, and that EU has every right to choose what they allow in and what they disallow.

They reject GM mustard. You can insult them and walk. Or we can provide them with what they want to buy.

They really don't CARE if you approve of their reasons for rejecting what you so DESPERATELY want to sell them!

If you want their business, Canada has to clean up its' act.

EU 'sort of' scolded Canada about procedures in place so that the mustard in their jars is not contaminated with dormant volunteer GM canola or worse, contains mustard crossed with the neighbors GM canola.

Do it or walk!
Parsley

[charliep]

Was the mustard rejected under EU regulation or because of terms in a contract
(buyer seller agreement)? My memory is more a business decision by a company -
no regulation or contract terms were broken.

[parsley]

There are challenges in co-existence between canola and mustard. And also between conventional and organic.

GM contamination can occur at field level. It presents both genetic seed problems and marketing problems in organic crops.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CEUQFjAJ&url=http%3 A%2F%2Fwww.sapidlife.org%2Fdocumenti_repository%2F scarica.php%3Ffile%3Den20060403200334proceedings_1 st_conference.pdf&ei=vT4uTfXiBY-ssAPdhYXWBg&usg=AFQjCNFUugcr1dzOx8TBXT_JBW4-jn5t0w

"When the relevant management measures are taken to reduce GM pollen dispersal, we expect that an isolation distance of 100 m will result in a GM content in the range of 0.1% to 0.3% of the total oilseed crop in the organic field (very small fields excluded). Single test samples collected from especially the field margins may however show a higher GM content."

The hotdog vendor in Austria doesn't want to recall GM mustard becuse it tested positive from cross-pollination.

Co-existence of crops and farming methods is necessary. Many work and consult with their neighbors. You throw up your hands and screech, "Lunatics."

Pars

[parsley]

My point is, there are two systems in play. charliep And have to be respected as such.

I referred to the plastic bags to illustrate how something from the past, that was originally "deemd safe" all of a sudden, is deemed no longer safe, charliep A reversal, that non-gm food won't have to deal with.

Projected number of events in GM crops worldwide, by trait:

http://www.agbioforum.org/v13n2/v13n2a08-cerezo.htm


Look at Figure 1
They include:
Herbicide Tolerance
Virus Resistance
Anbiotic Stress Tolerance drought)
Insect Resistant
Crop composotion oil/starch composition
disease resistance
other or unknown

Some traits are 'in the tube' for Canola, besides the ones already in the field.

The big question wd, is, think about GM food when there is worldwide negotiated global free trade, including China, North Korea, India and Iran, and all of them release hundreds of Events for all crops, with all of them stacked with three or four traits?

Science also surprises us with long term results.

You are still at stage one where you want to argue gm vs non-gm, safe vs unsafe. wd

EU prefers to buy from me and not from you. Try courting Africa. Parsley

[parsley]

"A few writings on a piece of paper"

EU legislated tolerances:
.09%
.01%
.00%
They precisely mean what they mean.