Triffid et al "INDUSTRY" STILL DOESN'T GET IT

[charliep]

Perhaps we can agree that Canada can never make the claim to have triffid free
flaxseed. If we accept that, what are the next steps?

I note wd9 suggestion. Perhaps this is the solution.

[oneoff]

Agreed charlie. And each time we hear this Triffid free nonsense; we must each challenge it vigorously; because saying it politely just doesn't seem to get the point across. Perhaps more important is the associated change from industry and government spokesperson who suggest, direct and force the paths we must follow. They should be responsible for the decisions they force us to make.
THE NEXT STEPS (in my opinion) are to give up on the policy of appeasement on this GM issue (for cases such as Triffid which can never be undone). For the cases of GM wheat and alfalfa etc. etc. etc. which possibly are not yet loose enough to have widespresd contamination; much different tactics should be employed. The regulators and accountable researchers and promoters of those products have to be willing to take on the financial costs of legitimate damages to such sectors as organic production; and unforseen disasters that are bound to occur. The creators of the product are entitled to the rewards from their products; and should be responsible for the safety and liabilities as well. Otherwise they are not yet ready to be entrusted with what they have created.
There is just a trickle of this new GM technology let loose compared to what may yet come (my opinion is that it is sure to come; and its will happen very prematurely). Those creators and promoters may well be too impatient to handle it responsibly. The rabid "environmentalists" on one end and the irresponsible regulators; promoters from industry and even excited,( but myopic )researchers at the other end of the spectrum are not the minority who should have been making the decisions about this new technology. This technology must have significant overall benefits for society; and be handled with extreme care and safeguards. If the Europeans; or any other customer doesn't buy into those benefits; then it is foolhardy to try to force someone else's opinion on them. Closer to home; the same principle applies. There should be no right to destroy the old ways of production; because it may well turn out that we will need that old technology as well in the future. Lets not forget that there are huge business opportunities for this new technology; and destroying the current production system is very good for those positioned to support the new GM technologies.


Its the consumers and farmers (which also include seed growers such as Tom ) who live with reality; and their and our lives and financial interests should have been protected from the very beginning. If more or larger problems are created than solved; then what is being gained.
That brings me to my final point of this post. If the main purpose is to attempt to feed and sustain 9 billion people; then it is long past the time to further stress this planets ability to sustain even the current population; which is obviously too many already. There is absolutely no need for human reproduction to continue to expand to the point where a major correction will happen because of that population increase.
Of couse we should also first agree on that being one of the primary problems. Are we agreed on that point too?.

[samhill]

Flax from here goes south of 49. U.S. exports of
flax have increased spectacularly. So, we just have
another middleman. The flax still gets sold.

[oneoff]

Right on Sam. My guess is that while the Canadian flax industry dwells on Triffid; the US tested 158 selected samples and then got on with life crushing flax for their domestic market at places like Redwing MN. They source flax from places like Canada
They sell to customers who want their oil and meal and largely don't waste their time trying to satisfy customers who couldn't be satisfied.

It reminds me of the person who once said "The only way that you could satisfy me is if nothing had been done at all". Take such people at face value. They can't currently be satisfied.
The lesson is that there are customers who can be satisfied; and that its possible even those very difficult customers will change their attitudes if they really start to hurt.
Let them make their own decisions; becaause they will anyway.

[TOM4CWB]

oneoff,

You have not admitted the fact... that I said EXACTLY what you explained above in this thread. I was the person honest enough to print the Secan letter that tells Pedigreed Seed growers that CDC Saskatoon varieties have breeder seed levels of triffid at somewhere possibly around .0025% or 1-2 seeds per million seeds. This is far below the EU gentlemenas agreement of .01% and pedigreed seed standards of .1% purity requirements.

Can anyone in western Canada now assure a cargo without any chance of triffid showing up... 0% ?

As you have been indicating... this 0% standard is not possible. Flax clings to almost everything... electostatic... crusts to any moisture... cross contamination is virtually impossible to stop because it is a dark colour and almost like paint when it drys on storage containers/bins.

I get it. A negative test for triffid means that the sample I submitted was ground up and had none. The fact that at 1 seed per million seeds means that at only about 8% of the samples tested will test trace triffid ... depending on the dilution of the GM event in the kernel... logically means the majority of testing will result in Negative results for .0025%. The EU standard is supposed to be .01%. This is 5 times higher than .01% if every sample had .0025% GM triffid... let alone only 8% which gives another 10 times safety margin your crop will be less than the .01% the EU requires supposedly.

15X safety on my genetic triffid certificate that clearly states is only for the sample submitted.

What more can you reasonably expect?

[TOM4CWB]

Sorry... that was 4X not 5... 14X safety margin.

[oneoff]

Ok Tom First I'll take you back 6 weeks ago and serve both you and I with the words we both posted one after the other. I still believe what you repeated at that time; and as you see I was the first and maybe only person to congratulate you on your honesty and integrity. This last week I have detected that you have strayed into repeating the fallacy of "Triffid free" propaganda; and erred in misinterpreting the sensitivity and ability of Triffid tests to draw conclusions beyond their current levels of DNA test sensitivities. First I want to assure you that I point these errors out for accuracy reasons; something that is desperately needed in situations such as the Triffid incident. It is certainly not a personal attack, and I truly hope I am right in my calculations..
More to come tonight after we have both had the chance to reread the following repeats of our posts.

TOM4CWB posted Feb 4, 2010 21:06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oneoff, CP, Checking....

This whole thing is a gut wrencher.

If one 60 gram sample is tested... (about 10,000 seeds) the accuracy is only .03% according to the experts.

So my test was negative... but really means nothing. We have been deceived.

This is why the 'new' protocol requires 4 different samples of 60 grams each... bringing the statistical accuracy to .01% 95% of the time. The sample needs to be .01% of the lot being tested... then cut using proper reducing protocol to end with 2.5kg for export... and 2.0kg for seed.

These DNA tests were originally for .1%... and only by close calibration can they meet the accuracy claimed. EU protocol requires 4 different 60 gram samples... ground to a preset consistency... then tested against known calibration samples. One sample is calibrated at .05%, one sample at .01% and the third at a known sample of ZERO Flax GM event.

I understand the EU often does not use the higher GM event .05 &.01% calibration samples... just the known ZERO sample. The EU in general does not care much about the .01% standard I am told... any amplification reading from the zero known sample is a positive for the GM event... there is no such thing as a 'trace' level of contamination in their minds.

A seed either contained the GM event... and tests negative... or is positive.



So Our Canadian GM testing system is screwed up and backwards.

Seed needs to have the 4-60 gram test first before conditioning. NOT after! $3/bu for conditioning is not far off cost last year for the flax I cleaned... using gravity etc. and assuring high quality for pedigreed stock seed. Plus $2.50/bu levy and royalty is not unusual. How many lots can seed growers afford to loose... to a 'false' positive or GM trace event...

If one of my 10t flax lots... tests positive... will anyone buy the lots that are from the same field that are negative? What about a trace result?

What about outcrossing?

If a GM flax plant outcrossed in a field 12 years ago... being a diploid and crossing with normal flax...

25% are normal; 50% have 50% of the GM event; 25% have 100% of the GM event normally this GM Flax.

Normal outcrossing is about 1.85% @ .1m it has been found. Outcrossing can happen as far as 35m at low frequencies (ie. Bees).

[Environmental biosafety of genetically engineered crops: Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) as a model system by Amitkumar Jayendrasinh Jhala]

So trace events now being tested at 30-40% of samples submitted... are by some people considered positive results even though we can not test accurately below .01%.

I am told in cargos now being delivered... have a very similar result being reported for their EU testing... our trace is a EU positive...

IF the cargo is being used in the EU for industrial... it can then be handled.

This is a 'gentleman's agreement' the .01% tolerance... NOT the LAW.

Zero is still Zero!

According to CFIA if a negative at .01 is tested and certified; a grower of seed can use this. BUT is a negative zero? It is a fact many growers who now THINK they are negative.... are instead half pregnant!

In the US... the LLRice event taught many things to those in LA. I spoke for a very long time to a wise operator at Eurofins GeneScan, Inc. today.

Farm saved seed that was properly cleaned and sampled and had a zero GM event... was just as effective at removal of the problem... as was certified seed.

Is rice different that flax?

Good question... but one would logically expect the US to be as expert and best experienced anywhere; because they have being dealing with this problem for over a decade!

I know there will be those who will want to hang me... being honest is more important than anything else... on judgement day before my creator.

In Louisiana they are 2 years into having clear rice seed GM zero reports... and virtually all commercial grain is at zero as well.

He said we are headed for a disaster up here... politics is trumping common sense and logic.

They will do the same tests as Quantum... are ISO certified (Quantum is not)... if you can wait a couple of weeks for the result.

Check the CGC web site for links... only 3 in North America are properly certified for the EU.

http://www.grainscanada.gc.ca/gmflax-lingm/ltf-lal-eng.htm



List of ISO 17025-accredited laboratories

Eurofins/GeneScan USA
Eurofins GeneScan, Inc.
2315 N Causeway Boulevard, Suite 200
Metairie LA 70001
Telephone: 504-297-4330
Web site: http://www.gmotesting.com/

Genetic ID
504 N 4th Street, Suite 102
Fairfield IA 52556
Telephone: 641-472-9979 or 877-366-0790
Web site: http://www.genetic-id.com

OMIC USA, Inc.
3344 NW Industrial Street
Portland OR 97210-1619
Telephone: 503-223-1497
Web site: http://www.omicnet.com/omicusa/index.htm
IP: Logged
Edit?

oneoff posted Feb 5, 2010 1:25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know t4; I have the deepest respect for anyone who tells the whole truth. Such people (and I now include you as one of them) have always been my first choice with whom I would prefer to have business dealings.
Registered seed growers deserve fair returns for the extra work and costs of producing your saleable product. When a catastropy happens; and the seed industry is an integral part of the story; it should have come clean and accepted even more than their fair share of the financial damages that have and will fall mainly outside the seed grower community.
When I first brought up the concept of the relationships of test sensitivity as it relates to tolerance levels as then related to the science of statistics and probabilities; levels of significance; maybe even standard deviations and confidence levels; not to mention sampling methadologies and inherent errors and mistakes possible in each of the above factors; it could be just as confusing to ordinary farmers as the Chief Justices summary of the determining liability. Myself included. I didn't have the facts that t4 has so bravely provided; and will be totally suprised if he is far from the mark. When there is no credable rebuttal to t4; as there has not been to my previous posts; then it can almost safely be said that our statements are pretty accurate.
Whether you can pull together various pieces of information to see the bigger picture is not determined by your level of education. That comes from a seperate set of skills that involve common sense; fairness and the ability to put truth and honesty above the short term gains in protecting your own interest.
Up to now; there has been way too many industry plans dictated by at least perceived self interest of those parties. There is every likelihood that their plan of certified seed is deleloped around limiting their own liabilities and offloading costs onto farmers. We've aquiesed too many times before; and someday should come together enough to gain a seat at the table. Again its time for those organizations and companies to come clean. They surely knew all about the points that t4 has reported; and have deliberately witheld and continue to withold that information which is essential to choosing the best options going forward.
Speak up if we are wrong; and certainly listen and respond if valid points are being made. You will gain respect no other way.

[oneoff]

If this is solely a debate between Tom and myself (and no one else is interested or listening to the arguments and errors we are both bound to make in good faith) then what is the sense in pointing out that
1 in 100 seeds is 1%
1 in 1000 seeds is 0.1%
1 in 10000 seeds is 0.01%
1 in 100,000 seeds is 0.001%
1 in 1,000,000 seeds is 0.0001%
and we are no where near zero persoent as more sensitive tests are developed in the future.
Further; more sensitive tests have not to my knowledge beeen developed since last November when 0.1 % was the standard; nor about Feb5/2010 when 0.01% was touted by replicating the 0.1% test four times and playing with statics a bit to guess about 0.01% and maybe even 0.0025%. Then some unknown person starts talking about probabilities of 1 to 2 seeds in a million in CDC breeder seeds. That had to come from a sensitivity of the same 0.1% test replicated numerous times and found but seldomly and applying heavy duty statistics to come up with a seemingly very trace inferred insignificant amount that sure still isn't zero. Then that result gets massaged by people like Tom and myself who may have good intentions. Also remember that companies and organizations with serious personal and business interests issue press releases and deliberately false and misleading stories about "Triffid free" (knowing about the supposed 1 to 2 in a million in our very purest seed stocks)to continue their industry plan to further the goal they started in secret and without disclosure long before they even let the farmers and public in on their clean-up plan designed to primarily protect their interests.
Unless and until everyone concedes there is a little bit of everything in anything; and it only takes a very sensitive test to prove that; and that test will be developed; and that test will be improved etc. etc. then we are just wasting all our time chasing the small stuff. Our eyes are diverted from the big picture and the details of tests are but a distraction.

For instance; there is no such thing as a "gentleman's agreement". If you have a contract; or a deal or an agreement or a true gentleman's agreement then you have gone past the stage of debate and offers and counter offers. You have discussed and agreed on all pertinant points. No further discussion is required because all necessary points have been settled in the agreement. Is this the case with the EU and Triffid and the Canadian industry?
Again "Triffid free" is being used widely in a very misleading way. And Tom; neither your sample; nor your 60 gram subsamples; no matter how many of them is able to be stated that they are "Triffid free". And if so then certainly your 10 tonne lots or a cargo of a ship can not be considered "triffid free". The absolute proof of that are the trial baloon shipment to the EU a few short months ago. You can bet they were tested multiple ways; and everyone of them was negative; and still there was a big problem at unload. Surely that is NUFF SAID on that point
The test isn't sensitive enough to test for zero percent for sure or even close to not for sure. Not to mention the inherent limitations in the test itself; the possible contamination of the contaminated sample; or the science of statistics that is after all based on probabilities. Are you still sure about anything.
The point is be very careful in being so sure about anything. We all keep proving how little we really know; and this is one fact that can be extrpolated back up to the conclusions of others that we rely on (and should really question before we make the same mistakes that others have fallen into.
I'll leave it to others to figure out if 1 to 2 in a million seeds can be related inthe same order of magnitude as 0.0025%
Other questionable conclusions by numerous industry spokepersons are also left unchallenged at this point in time.
The best we should do is rely on a test result such that may state "This sample tested negative for Triffid contamination at 0.xxxxx% level" By the way; how are test results actually reported?
And Tom a sincere thank you for your information and input. I hope at least some can say the same about myself.

[TOM4CWB]

Oneoff,

Like a dog chewing on a bone... until it is out of sight/mind/imagination... we keep on chewing.

The flax council called me back yesterday.

I told him they had failed us... this issue has not been resolved... that it will not be until they achieve a government to government agreement on an exact tolerance.

He told me pedigreed seed must be zero to be planted in western Canada. Not .01%... the EU standard being quoted by everyone(by the way; this has always been the standard for the past 6 months)the pedigreed purity requirement is .1%) not ten of 100 times less than .01%... the EU still says zero.

After many reproductions... over a decade... the GM event is homogeneous throughout the system... not ten seeds together. CDC Saskatoon testing assures us that this is a fact.

We have taken a test originally developed to test for this GM event... and applied it in a way that could detect .01% or more of the event in each sample.... and extrapolated it down to .0025% on my certificate saying that my seed is negative.

As we said... only the seeds ground up and genetically scanned... have actually been checked... and they no longer exist...!

Putting this GM event back in a single bottle... 15 years after it has been all over the planet reproducing... is absurd... and especially since no one can prove anything was hurt from this GM event that was released in the first place.

Have we learned anything from this?

I have made this point to my MP... perhaps you could contact your MP and make it to him.

I said; "No GM event should be released until it had global acceptance."

My MP said this was absurd. Canola was given as an example of the benefit to humanity and western Canadian farmers.

Was this done for western Canadian farmers? Good question. Has the world become better fed because of all these GM events? Do less people expire than if we didn't use this technology?

We will obviously never know.

This is speculation... we only know what has been done... and it was a massive experiment... Canada and the US say it was proven safe for release and to be consumed by animals and humans.

The triffid GM event has been seeded around the globe!

A real 'Canadian' achievement!

[TOM4CWB]

Oneoff,

Upon re-reading... one must ask the question... if one plant in a million is triffid at some level... why more positive tests don't appear. If we assume there are 3 million plants per acre and these plants produce 30 times at 22bu/ac... 90m seeds/ac. at 1/m GM event that means each plant produces 30 seeds... why aren't there more positive 'Hot spot' results from testing?

Somehow... this whole thing seems crazy!

[oneoff]

The regulators and the industry obviously don't know what they have done. (Its exactly like the development of nuclear energy). Our "leaders" will not lead us out of this or any other mess (that is all set up to happen; and will happen )under the watch of the same people (or those with the same attitudes). It might look extremely good for a while; have many positives; but come close to destrying us all; or may indeed do so in the long run. A few generations is not the long run.
The good news is that some form of life will go on. It may be somewhat better or somewhat worse; but we will adapt. At the extremes there will be disasters and great boons. It sure won't turn out exactly the way anyone has planned; because all the consequences weren't examined beforehand.

[charliep]

Is triffid flax a food safety or market access issue?

I will note that GM technology is widely used around the world and accepted in industrial, animal feed and human food markets. What makes triffid flax different is that it was never approved as a genetic event in Europe (was approved in Canada and the US). If the genetic had been or were approved in Europe, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I am often curious whether Europeans eat Corn Flakes? If they do, it is unlikely these corn flakes can be said to be free of GM material. Similar comments vegetable oil that has soybean oil (even though vegetable oil has limited genetic material - that is carried with the proteins).

I likely look at statistics differently from a risk standpoint. If I compared the risk 1 in 10,000 seed triffid (or even 1 in 1,000) to the a more virilant mycrotoxin in some of the new strains of fusarium head blight, which represents a higher risk to human health?