GMO Wheat

[charliep]

I would also encourage you to look at the USDA/APHIS websites as they indicate their approach to investigating the problem.

[URL="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/05/ge_wheat_detection.shtml"]APHIS[/URL]

[wmoebis]

Once again you bring up good points Charlie:

The reason we need to have this discussion is:
http://www.grainscanada.gc.ca/wheat-ble/ds-sd/declaration/dedgo-dalgo-eng.htm

We have to sign this before delivery and put ourselves liable for all deliveries even if we don't know or are lead to believe that there is no chance of genes being in Canada but they happen to show up in our produce.

Monsanto should have to sign a dock that says if any genes show up in my product that they will take all liability. They are the only ones that have the tech to produce it.

[oneoff]

Because dear charlie "It is a small world".

It amazes me how easily we can all forget that the same Monsanto, and wannabes Syngenta, Bayer and everyoneone else, also do business around the world; and would "copy and literally paste" applicable GMO technlogy that fits in the particular country of the moment.

Now as to why we are having this conversation......who says we are having any meaningful discussion. The die was cast long ago. This is just a perpetual filling of the mould to make billions of dollars and create "monocultures" that initially were sold as solving hunger problems; creating production filled with scarce and expensive nutrients and providing extraordinary benefits for both producers annd consumers.

But $75.00 for a few pounds of seed per acre is more like squeezing every dollar out that the market will bear. And how to those who need to produce food for their own needs benefit? And in such cases as flax we find out that breeder seed at the University level is widely contaminated; and all costs that are possible get hived off onto anyone who will stand for it.
And charlie, all those points apply to Canada as well as the USA (and everyone but some "rogue" nation that might be charging their people 15 cents a gallon for their plentiful petroleum.) I suspect such countries are not very popular with the logos of the same multi-national companies that we also recognize.

And finally we are/are not having this conversation, because we are affected by world grain prices; and like Triffid; it may lieterally ruin the economics of a crop over many years; then require ongoing proof that we are not yet contaminated by the "Oregon experience"; and will still not have solved the "mystery" of how something only Monsanto could have created....has escaped into the wild.
Do you not subscribe to the theory that "six or seven bullets (or applications)"is all it takes to select for very rare non-typical events; to turn them into a population of the majority.

That is a very good question for you to ponder deeply; instead of apologizing for; running interference with; and spreading the line of supporting propaganda that enables lack of accountability and responsibility of the largest players; and downlading the fallout on those who will not object sufficiently.

Oh and yes each and every farmer is affected; some to the point where they must totally change or exit; and some sectors more than others. Look at the inability to grow uncontaminated canola/****seed and connect some dots. And I guess some people missed the unregistered US varieties that have been grown as early as some three decades ago. I doubt if the first hand bragging also involved simultaneous lying those thirty years ago...or in between.

Has human nature and desire to make an extra buck (at any cost and with no thought about consequences) changed to a fully honorable and noble occupation of food production since then?

[charliep]

Whatever. The companies you name also do business
in Europe with a different set of rules and more
funding. They also use biotechnology although not
genetic engineering. The world you ask for becomes
a lot more complicated with only limited numbers of
companies who can make the investments required -
the situation today.

Just trying to keep the discussion focused on the
situation at hand. You highlight the negative side.
There could be positive outcomes as well. It may
prove to be nothing or it may change the world and
cause the discussion you want. The outcome of that
discussion may be new international rules around
introducing new plant breeding technologies. That
would be a good thing.

Mean while, we need a better understanding as to
how a technology brought forward in spring wheat
moved to a soft white winter wheat. I guess I would
like to know the full facts. But I am a practical and
not a politician.

I stand by my comment that the RR wheat gene is not
in Canadian wheat. Do you believe it is? What is your
evidence?

[oneoff]

If the RR gene isn't in Canada now; then its a matter of time until it will be. Then you will say that it is safe and there should be no concern.

All it takes for that to happen is one seed (or maybe some pollen grains). It may indeed be some misguided person, or carelessness, or recklessness or maybe a SW wind. As the event expands, eradication is all but impossible. It becomes a matter of living with trace amounts.

If the claim is that Monsanto only tested and worked on spring wheat and its now in winter wheat; then that should indicate this isn't going to be isoated to some chem fallow field. Someone who has access to some rogue plants growing in Oregon; or from screenings of any previous year back to the days of field tests in the early 2000's has all the ingredients necessary. Nobody will probably ever know.

As for dwelling on the negative....if positive propaganda can't stand the light of the flip side; then too bad. The cost to benefit ratio had better be much greater than unity or there has indeed beteen a gross error allowing the development and testing of spring wheat in Oregon and elsewhere.

And that responsibility rests with those who have supported and facilitated these projects in the past and present. The least we should demand is appropriate attention to the potential seriousness of remote chances of some outcomes. When in doubt..."maybe don't do it" is the safest rule...until there much greater certainty.

And others say "Whatever" to your opinions which admittedly don't contain all the facts; or an analysis of any of the opposing views put out for critical assessment.

[charliep]

So you indicate there is no evidence that there is any
presence of the glyphosate resistant gene in western
Canadian wheat?

[wmoebis]

The diff. is producers take all
liability for the gov't and Monsanto
before they can deliver (get their pay
check).

If those declarations released us from
this responsibility instead of down
loading it onto each and everyone of us
it would be diff.

All I say is the Gov't and Monsanto
should accept and be financially
responsible IF the RR gene should ever
show up in Canada.

If you are confident that RR gene is
not in Canada you sign all producers
declarations in respect to the RR gene
but I know I am not (that) confidant.

[charliep]

Is the RR gene a specific clause in your varietal declaration. My assumption is that you are simply identifying the variety you are delivering. Discovery of the genetic material would have market access and price implications but that has not happened in Canada over and above your declaration.

As a seller of product, are you encouraging all your buyers to request full testing and verification of all Canadian wheat for the RR gene? It is not that difficult a test and I am surprised it hasn't been done to date either by customers or exporters. This happens to confirm varietal purity, quality attributes, chemical residue, molds, diseases, weed seeds, etc, etc.

[charliep]

A question in general. Is anyone finding plants (wheat or otherwise) other RR canola that are surviving application of glyphosate? Is the issue inclusion of the tolerance gene or over use of these products/plants that are developing ability to tolerate?

[oneoff]

Yeah we all take close notice of every weed out of place and the exact chemical composition of each and every kernel and plant on our farms.

AS IF TAT IS ANYWHERE POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE ON EVEN ONE SQUARE FOOT.

Even the most experenced elevator agent couldn't tell you what one of the registered varieties; your load of barley was predomominantly grown from.

And as far as simple tests; the Monsanto site admits that they don't have a "test kit" for the GMO wheat currently in the news. But they are hard at work getting it ready.

And guess what; another revenue stream for Monsanto;

And another couple hundred bucks for each test one very five thousand bushels. Thats the experience flax growers have had for the last number of years.

As I said before; this particular mess belongs 100% to Monsanto. They own it; they claim no one but them had access to any of their seeds and it was never registered anywhere in the world.

What part of accountability and responsibility don't the owners, enablers, apologists and supporters understand? Its almost as though those promoters are in self-denial. If what has apparently happened was deemed impossible; then what else still awaits being revealed?

The foxes are in charge of the chicken coop?????

[charliep]

You responded to this question for Triffid. Will see if you are consistent. Is this issue a human health issue or a market access one?

[ado089]

There are dozens of plants that range from mildly tolerant to completely resistant to glyphosate. The mechanisms of tolerance range from metabolically to physiological. RR crops winter annuals and perennials depending on the season will tolerate glyphosate on a metabolic level. Where as weeds like lambs quarters have a waxy layer on the top of the leaf and kockia has fine hairs that prevent the product from entering the stomata. Young grasses/cereals have thin, erect leaves that make them a difficult target for a droplet of spray solution to hit. Add low spray volume and typical spring winds and I would suggest that a typical spring burnoff is at best 75% effective on average. So simply seeing some green after an application of roundup is not a fair assessment of genetic contamination.

That being said if the likes of Monsanto want to benefit from intellectual property laws they should be liable for intentional or preventable escapes. Live by the sword die by the sword.