Flax?

[Fransisco]

And for something a little different how's about the latest in anti-GM fashion.

<a href="http://judoinfo.com/discuss/uploads/post-4-1125429608.jpg "> http://judoinfo.com/discuss/uploads/post-4-1125429608.jpg</a>

[Hopperbin]

If there was a producer growing Triffid flax then there should be samples saved at the elevators, could be used to find out where the contamination come from. I would think jail time should be in order if that was the case and the farmer should lose his right to be a producer. Now if there is GMO contamination in all our flax then the biotech company should be on the hook for that one. Just one other thought, is there anything that a European is allowed to eat???

[parsley]

Let's clear the air on this one first...one step at a time, franny.

1.Could we agree that finding GM canola in flax in Europe was not desirable, ?
Yes or No

Now trhe next step

2. If it is not desirable, who do you think SHOULD step up to address the issue..canola growers like hopper? How about barley growers? Or bean growers? Or the Toronto symphony, perhaps? Nobody?

I'm interested in your TWO answers

[Fransisco]

You first.

Is zero GM tolerence reasonable?Yes or No

[parsley]

Your retort-question is not pertinent to the two questions I framed. Don't ask my opinion about arranged marriages either.

Europe sets there own tolerances! What I or you THINK is irrelevant. It is not my place to tell EU what their standards should be. Lawsey.

I just want to sell to them. I can comply or not comply with their standards. The marketing questions I ask relate to injury to entry to that market. It is something we...Canadians... can fix/improve.

I would hope you are capable of answering two simple questions, franny. Pars

[Fransisco]

Oh,I disagree the question is so very relevant.The answer to it answers your question.

[parsley]

"Could we agree that finding GM canola in flax in Europe was not desirable?"

That was the question. It should have been easily answered.

Few think outcome from bad publicity, regulatory incidents,or customer dissatisfaction is desirable.


If you think that finding GMO flax in EU is DESIRABLE when they specified they don't want it, when they buy our products, when they pay, then I guess you do.

Most exporters would be disappointed the requirements were not met.

Most exporters hope for a repeat sale.

Most exporters try to supply what their buyers want.

Most exporters do not want to be offside of the law.

Most exporters don't want contoversy.

Most exporters don't want to lose their reputation.


I view GM canola in flax in Europe, is an undesirable incident.

So, fran, we have no common ground.

And I would hope, for those contemplating exporting or resuming exportation, that a view/attitude such as yours, is neither endorsed or expressed by those who officially represent producers and exporters.
Parsley

[Fransisco]

First off, I would ask you to please not put words in my mouth.

Secondly, the question I asked you was equally simple.

Did you refuse to answer it because perhaps you believe that it is perfectly reasonable to be unreasonable? Or is it that you don't think zero tolerance is reasonable but that doesn't help in demonizing GMOs so you'd rather not say?

Let me answer my own question then.

I do not think that a zero tolerance policy on GMOs is reasonable. Not that long ago we could only detect things in parts per thousand, then it was parts per million, then billion, now it's probably parts per trillion and steadily climbing. You put a big enough microscope on anything and you will eventually find something you didn't want.

Now, I am willing to be reasonable when it comes to a governments wishes regarding GMOs. But there is nothing reasonable about zero tolerance of things that have no empirical evidence of causing any harm especially when they can be traced down to microscopic levels.

Nothing good comes from pandering to unreasonableness. And that is what is at the root of this flax issue.

Yes, a shipment didn't meet spec. But when impossible standards are applied should we be aghast that at some point someone doesn't meet them? Again that would be an unreasonable and disproportionate response.

[Fransisco]

Moving on to your 'simple' questions then.

"1. Could we agree that finding GM canola in flax in Europe was not desirable?"

We still don't know if it was canola, triffid, corn or who knows what exactly. And no the outcome has not been good.

"2.If it is not desirable, who do you think SHOULD step up to address the issue..canola growers like hopper? How about barley growers? Or bean growers? Or the Toronto symphony, perhaps? Nobody?"

One cannot ignore the part that the EU zero tolerance policy has played in all of this. My guess is that whatever they found will be in an incredibly small amount. I could of course be wrong in that, but we'll see.

Obviously, the ultimate responsibility of meeting the specs was with whoever put the deal and or shipment together. However if it comes back actually being Triffid flax then you have to give them some slack, as the stuff was never commercialized. Most of us didn't even know it ever existed at all until last week.

I see the organic folks are blaming the bio tech companies but Triffid was a University of Saskatchewan project. I'm not in favour of suing them back into the stone age but then again I'm trying to be reasonable about the whole thing. Others may be out buying rope and picking out appropriate trees to use for disciplinary measures.

And I see you talking on behalf of consumers and customers a lot. Newsflash, you don't speak for all European consumers and customers and neither does the EU government. One of the things that this problem here is, is that it's another example of government sticking its nose where its not needed and driving an unnecessary wedge between buyers and sellers.

I'll wager the folks on the customer side of the equation are none to happy about this zero tolerance nonsense either. Particularly the linoleum and paint factories. There's not a whole lot of exportable flax in the world, if they can't get it from Canada they're going to be in a world of hurt. But hey what's a few more jobs and factories down the toilette when you've got to protect the general public from hobgoblins and fairies dancing at the bottom of the ocean.

This is where our government actually should get involved. It is their job to keep trade flowing by removing exactly these kind of non science based non tariff trade barriers. I think it should be on the priority list for the upcoming EU,Canada free trade negotiations.

Until the zero tolerance policy changes there will have to be heightened surveillance and testing of Canadian shipments destined for the EU. Which is certainly not impossible but it will add costs which will no doubt have to be borne by both buyers and sellers alike. Buyers will have to pay more and sellers will have to receive less. Increased overall cost will likely lead to fewer overall sales. Because after all, in the end, price does matter.

And let me add one more item to your exporter list that you seem to have overlooked.

<b>Most exporters want reasonable tolerance levels.</b> (as do most importers)

[Fransisco]

Speaking of European customers here is an interesting article from the UK Independent. Yes Virginia, price does matter, and not a whole heck of a lot of shoppers (in the UK anyways) are overly concerned about GM.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/big-stores-counting-the-cost-of-ban-on-gm-food-1779870.html

<b>Big stores counting the cost of ban on GM food

Supermarkets in talks on how to educate public about benefits of science</b>

By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspodent, Tuesday, 1 September 2009

Britain's food giants have privately warned that they are struggling to maintain their decade-long ban on genetic modification and called for the public to be educated about the increasing cost of avoiding GM, The Independent reveals today.

As major producers such as the US and Brazil switch to GM, <b>supermarkets are now paying 10 to 20 per cent more for the dwindling supplies of conventional soya and maize, according to a report by the Food Standards Agency (FSA)</b> and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

Tesco, Sainsbury's, Morrisons, Marks & Spencer, Somerfield, Aldi and Co-op met civil servants to explain their problems in finding non-GM supplies.

Warning of the price hikes, the report – quietly published online last month – said: "Retailers were concerned that they may not be able to maintain their current non-GM sources of supply as producers increasingly adopt GM technology around the world."

Despite legislation requiring GM food to be labelled in the UK's cafes, restaurants and takeaways, customers were already eating food saturated with GM fat without knowing, added the report.

<b>Although fierce public opposition to so-called "Frankenstein foods" has fallen from its peak at the end of the 1990s and early 2000s</b>, when retailers vowed not to stock anything with GM ingredients, changing genes in human food remains highly controversial.

Campaigners such as Friends of the Earth fear GM crops could damage human health and the environment and place control of the food supply in the hands of a few multinational chemical companies, warning of a "corporate takeover of agriculture".

Despite the potential public backlash, <b>ministers believe it may now be the right time to consider its introduction as a way of meeting a UN target to raise global food production by 2050. Asked whether GM was the answer to his call last month for a new green revolution, Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, whose new food security strategy this autumn is expected to move closer to backing GM, praised "science".</b>

Supermarkets and manufacturers can sell food made from GM ingredients grown elsewhere, but must state that products contain GM ingredients.

After meeting industry stakeholders, the joint FSA and Defra document – GM Crops and Foods: Follow-up to the Food Matters Report – reported that there "is some use of GM food ingredients in the UK, particularly in the catering sector where oil from GM crops is often supplied to customers who are working to lower prices, and bulk packs are suitably labelled. It was considered unlikely that relevant information regarding food produced using such oils is provided to the final consumer, as required in EC legislation."

<b>The FSA noted that spontaneous concern about GM voiced by consumers had fallen steadily from a peak in December 2003, when 20 per cent of shoppers were worried, to 6 per cent last September.</b>

<b>Supermarket bosses are rethinking their approach. After delivering the City Food Lecture in February, Sir Terry Leahy, chief executive of Tesco, said that giving in to concern about GM could have been a mistake: "It may have been a failure of us all to stand by the science.</b>

"Maybe there is an opportunity to discuss again these issues and a growing appreciation by people that GM could play a vital role in feeding the world's growing population."

At the time, International Supermarket News quoted an <b>industry source as saying: "I am pretty certain that several parties involved are actively looking for the way out of their Canute-like positions. Maybe the reality of the costs of GM-avoidance is finally striking home."</b>

The FSA/Defra document reported that many stakeholders noted "it may be timely to inform consumers of the issues surrounding GM and non-GM supply chains so that they have a clear understanding of current science, the status of non-GM market being reliant on only a few exporting countries, and the steady increase in GM production".

Tesco was unavailable for comment yesterday, but the British Retail Consortium, which speaks for the major grocery retailers, denied British shops would change their approach. "Retailers are not stocking GM products and there are no plans to change that – it's a response to customers' views," said spokesman Richard Dodd.

Pete Riley, director of GM Freeze, the anti-GM campaign, accused the Government of being "desperate" to back GM, adding that it had pressurised Defra and the FSA into producing a "scaremongering" report. Supermarkets could work with growers to produce a long-term, non-GM supply, he said, adding any store that broke ranks by introducing GM would be "brave".