RR Alfalfa gets non reg status

[wd9]

That would be true if i was growing unhealthy food. But i am not. I am, as well as just about all the rest of the posters on this site grow healthy, approved and safe food. We do not grow your fear mongering examples of alledgedly cancer inducing products but rather ones that feed the world and our own families.

Your religious views on organics, which are only a marketing method and have nothing to do with food safety or nutrition or a shred of real proof for that matter, are not what the Canadian science based approval system is about. It only hurts the farmers who do use these systems. About 98% percent of the farmers BTW.

But you are entitled to your opinion. But at the end of the day, it is just your opinion, not fact, not science, not even common sense, the rest of us will continue to move forward in agriculture to feed the world. Keep stoking the loom fires parsely cuz there will be a lot more looms coming. RR alfalfa is just one of them.

[parsley]

As you should know,peer-reviewed climate change science was bunk. Bullshit!

Scientists, some governments and specific corporations huddled in a gorey room to plan the scheme.

Planned, statistical error-riddled bullshit. It's funny! And okay, maybe the oil producers should be slapped. And if we did go to windmills, okay, we won't die. Money making schemes are as common as warts.

But food is another matter.

And frankly, Scientific modifiest bullshit makes climate changers look like kindergarten novices.

Check your knackers. Pars

[wd9]

Are you saying the existing biotech canola we all have been growing since 1997 is bad thing?

[parsley]

Your question is context-vague.

Canola has been profitable for agriculture, for chemical companies, for seed suppliers, etc.

But, my narrow interest,as you well know, is the growing and use of canola, of all agriculktural crops, for FOOD use.

Food. That's when I question.

I know. I know. You are bloated with full faith, much like religious fervor, in all scientific reviews, so be extra patient with bringing all the Inspector Clueso's up to speed LOL

Canola margarine is scientifically peer reviewed, so lather it on your bread wd,you're confident, and rub it into those tired feet. The main scientific reason I have to not eat margarine is my cat won't go near it. LOL <p></p>
<p><strong>[URL="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_margarine_a_pure_substance_or_a_mixture"](If food is stamped Grade AAA by scientists and governments and experts, why should anyone question them for heaven's sakes!)[/URL]</strong></p>

[parsley]

It isn't that professionals 'working for you' (tic) don't understand the issues. But information is sometimes targeted or suppressed.

Is there even one farmer that clicked on the prostate cancer location map I posted who didn't say, "Youch, but why is there so much cancer in the West?"

Are those stats highlighted in farm publications? Not the ones I look at.

Why?

btw, I just leafed through February's "Agriview" that came in the mail wondering what was said about flax seed. Hmmm.

Daphne Cruise has an article on "Clean Seed will Help Manage Risk in 2011." Elaine Moats and Kim Stonehouse wrote on "Seed Quality Considerations for 2011." All agrologists.

Neither article contains the word "flax". Look for yourself. Don't take my word for it. We have a flax fiasco, and flaxseed is a problem and not one word from 'professionals'?

Are they incompetent, targeting info, or suppressed? They don't deserve to get paid.

No one cares more about your land, your bottom line, or your health more than YOU do.

A dose of skepticism is healthy!
... taking into polite consideration, though, the fanaticism of our regular posting science-imam. Pars

[wd9]

Fine. More specific then. Do you believe biotech canola grown in Canada by farmers in Canada to be unsafe for human consumption?

[parsley]

...I want to take my time to consider your question carefully to show you all the respect the question deserves......so I'll graze information:

You'd better sue because she's darn sassy:<p></p>
<p><strong>[URL="http://organicyogamama.com/canola-oil/"](It is claimed that the Canadian government paid the FDA (Federal Drug Administration) the sum of $50 million dollars to have Canola oil placed on the GRAS list (Generally Recognized As Safe List).)[/URL]</strong></p>

[parsley]

Now here's a bit of juicy gossip:
<p></p>
<p><strong>[URL="http://www.ehow.com/facts_5502405_canola-oil-health-risks.html"](The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibits using Canola oil in baby formula, citing unknown risks to infants from ingesting the product.)[/URL]</strong></p>

[parsley]

Oh. oh.

"(4) Low erucic acid ****seed oil and partially hydrogenated low erucic acid ****seed oil are used as edible fats and oils in food, EXCEPT IN INFANT FORMULA,..."
<p></p>
<p><strong>[URL="http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=184.1555"](Would you consider the US's FDA legitimate"peer review"? )[/URL]</strong></p>

[parsley]

"Do you believe biotech canola grown in Canada by farmers in Canada to be unsafe for human consumption?"

i gotta go with peer-reviewed science, wd,

If the USA's Food and Drug Administration have banned canola oil from baby food, I am legally bound to say it is unsafe for human consumption.

Science plus law, you know. Pars

[parsley]

Wikipedia bling:

"In a study by Scientists at the University of Arkansas published in 2010 showed that about 83 percent of wild or weedy canola they tested contained genetically modified herbicide resistance genes, and they also found some plants that contained resistance to both herbicides, a combination of transgenic traits that had not been developed in canola crops. That leads us to believe that these wild populations that contain modified genes have become established populations"

[wd9]

See, this is the problem Parsely. The speaking of half truths and the liberal addition of your own key words to market your organic product as miracle food.

For reference from the FDA database:

(c)Low erucic acid ****seed oil. (1) Low erucic acid ****seed oil, also known as canola oil, is the fully refined, bleached, and deodorized edible oil obtained from certain varieties ofBrassica Napus orB. Campestris of the familyCruciferae. The plant varieties are those producing oil-bearing seeds with a low erucic acid content. Chemically, low erucic acid ****seed oil is a mixture of triglycerides, composed of both saturated and unsaturated fatty acids, with an erucic acid content of no more than 2 percent of the component fatty acids.

(2) Low erucic acid ****seed oil as defined in paragraph (c)(1) of this section may be partially hydrogenated to reduce the proportion of unsaturated fatty acids. When the partially hydrogenated low erucic acid ****seed oil is used, it shall be referred to as partially hydrogenated low erucic acid ****seed oil.

(3) In addition to limiting the content of erucic acid to a level not exceeding 2 percent of the component fatty acids, low erucic acid ****seed oil and partially hydrogenated low erucic acid ****seed oil must be of a purity suitable for their intended use.

(4) Low erucic acid ****seed oil and partially hydrogenated low erucic acid ****seed oil are used as edible fats and oils in food, except in infant formula, at levels not to exceed current good manufacturing practice.

Site:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=184.1555

[wd9]

The claim, well it is just a claim. More fodder to market organics.

In terms of weeds, since 95% of the canola grown is biotech big surprise that volunteer contains the genes. Duh, that is how nature works.

Theatrics plus half truths plus unproven claims equals the organic marketing plan. The educated consumer sees right thru the BS.

[wd9]

The FDA does not differentiate biotech or not. Only Parsely does for effect.

[wd9]

It is not peer reviewed science about the infant formula, it is not done. You are assuming since the science is not done, canola is unsafe. The actual peer reviewed science part of the FDA claim says it is safe.