Flax?

[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".

[charliep]

The answer to your first question is no - if true (and all the evidence points
that way although it I haven't seen anything that says for sure it was GMO
flax or something else including something in the dockage/add mix/etc.
We still don't know (or at least I haven't seen) the process for the presence
of the genetic market or the amount found.

If the genetic marker is there, the potential liability issue will be interesting.
I suspect there is nothing about varietal purity in the CGC grading
standards. So then the issue becomes the inclusion of an unregistered
variety in a shipment. Rules might be clear for wheat but less likely less
defined flax. So then becomes a question the regulatory implications of an
unregistered genetically engineered variety in the commercial don't know.
Don't know but I suspect the first step.

Suspect the big driver will be what was in the commercial contracts
between buyers. This will assign liability and requirements. The liability
issues will flow out of this including back to Canadian businesses and
potentially farms.

The issue really however is to have one shipment which falls offset on a
European rule shut down a whole commercial activity. I suspect that if
Europe tested every ship load of flax, they wouldn't find anything in 99 % of
the shipments. Still wouldn't because shippers still aren't able to take on
that 1 % liability.

What is likely needed coming out of this fiasco (and it is one) is better
processes. Step 1 might be to get European approval for all biotech and
novel crops in Canada (expensive but needs to be done). The second thing
will be to work with Europe to establish some type of tolerances even if
extremely tight and from there protocols/testing processes agreed by both
sides. The third idea will be to look at special contracts for specific needs
and specification customers (example bakers/mills who use flax in their
products). On the latter, I have to ask why Canada can run a system of
registered and certified seed from the plant breeder to the seed grower to a
farmer with tight varietal and weed content and yet we can't move product
with tight specifications to Europe. This would be an extremely well
developed and perhaps expensive identity preserved system.

Perhaps the real interesting discussion will be what can be done to prevent
this from happening in the future. Realizing the GMO is mainly a political
debate, this will become more in an issue in the future of world
protectionism. Perhaps the target should be world standards for things like
GE. As indicated, the EU does import GE crops under the current world
rules albeit they have have to be approved under the EU regulatory process.

[Fransisco]

Here is another two examples of EU customers not being in favour of zero tolerance.


<b>GMO Zero Tolerance Devastating For EU Livestock Feed</b>

EU - Coceral, the European grain and feedstuffs traders and Fefac, the EU compound feed manufacturers welcome the new EU Commission report on the economic impact of unapproved GMOs, which concludes on the “need to take urgent action to avoid negative implications for EU livestock production and agriculture overall”.

<b>JeanMichel Aspar, Coceral President, stated that “the present strict zero-tolerance policy of the EU is disproportionate and will lead to a complete halt of vital feed supplies from South and North-America, as no trading company will bear the risk of guaranteeing absence of traces of GMOs approved in some third countries but not yet in the EU”.</b>

He stressed that “the EU is totally dependant on soybean meal imports as major source of vegetable proteins, for which no substitutes are available in sufficient quantities on EU or world markets”.

Major feed cost increase
Pedro Corrêa de Barros, Fefac President, stressed that the current de-facto import ban for corn gluten feed will increase feed costs to the EU livestock industry by another €60-90 million at a time of record-high feed grain prices.

He pointed out that “a similar ban on soybean meal imports will have devastating consequences for European livestock producers, wiping out entire pig and poultry production chains in the EU

Safeguard viable livestock industry
Coceral and Fefac have therefore called on the EU Farm Council to safeguard a viable livestock industry in the European Union, which accounts for 40% of the farm revenues, by ensuring reliable access to vital feed material imports.

As demonstrated in the DG-AGRI study, the “CAP Health check” objectives of a more competitive and sustainable EU agriculture cannot be achieved unless solutions are found to address the issue of unapproved GMOs.

Toolbox ingredients
Coceral and Fefac take the view that a “toolbox” with the following key elements is necessary to re-establish normal trading patterns ensuring a regular supply of high-quality feed materials for the European livestock industry:

•aligning the speed of the GMO authorisation procedure between the EU and the major exporting countries;
•a risk proportionate, workable tolerance for the low level presence of products that have obtained a positive EFSA opinion or have been approved by another OECD country to be present in cargoes of traded feed materials.

and

Friday, July 17, 2009

<b>Mr Pedro Correa de Barros, FEFAC President, warns livestock farmers that feed prices may increase significantly at very short notice due to the EU zero-tolerance policy for the presence of trace levels of not yet EU approved GM plants in imported feeds.</b>


He referred to the potential total loss of important soya imports from the US </b>following positive testing by German authorities of traces (dust in foreign material)</b> of not yet EU approved GM maize in US soybeans and soybean meal. Of concern to the EU livestock industry is that it needs to source soybeans and soybean meal from the US at least until the next South American harvest in spring 2010.

Soya prices could rise by at least 20 €/t due to additional “risk premiums” for US origin and even significantly higher if the EU could no longer import from the US, due to the lack of alternative supplies from South America.
<b>The EU is dependent for more than 80% on imports of vegetable proteins</b> for which there are no substitution possibilities in the short term. EU imports of meat are all produced from animals which may legally be fed with not yet EU authorised GM plants.

In a letter to the EU Farm Council Presidency he stated that “at a time when most EU livestock producers were facing economic hardship, the EU opposition to provide a practical threshold for trace levels of not yet EU authorized GM plants in imported feed may drive EU livestock farmers and feed operators out of business”.

Mr Pedro Correa de Barros therefore called on EU Farm Ministers “to agree on urgent measures at the next EU Farm Council meeting on 13 July 2009 to prevent the export of the EU livestock industry”. He stressed that "it is the EU's foremost responsibility to ensure vital protein feed imports for livestock farmers and thus food security for EU citizens while maintaining an economically viable and sustainable livestock sector".

BACKGROUND

1. FEFAC, the European Compound Feed Manufacturers’ Federation, represents 21 national Associations in 20 EU Member States as well as Associations in Switzerland, Turkey, Croatia, Serbia and Norway with observer/associate member status. The European compound feed industry employs over 110,000 persons on app. 4,500 production sites often in rural areas, which offer few employment opportunities.

2. Farm animals in the EU-27 consume an estimated 470 million tonnes of feed a year, of which 150 million tonnes are produced by the compound feed manufacturers. Turnover of the European compound feed industry was estimated at € 45 billion for 2008.

[Fransisco]

I found this sentence from the above most interesting,

"He referred to the potential total loss of important soya imports from the US following positive testing by German authorities of traces (<b>dust in foreign material</b>) of not yet EU approved GM maize in US soybeans and soybean meal."

It highlights how absurd this all is. Now shippers have to worry about, of all things the DNA of dust. Again I ask is this reasonable? The answer again is no it is not.

What if we find out the same thing about our flax that it was a result of nothing more than dust? Who do we put in front of Parsley's firing squad then?

[Fransisco]

IMHO- If governments are going to be in charge of food safety then they have an obligation to deal with actual real food safety issues. Food safety should should not be politicized and it should not be based on opinion and political polls. It should be based on science and evidence. That is not the case here with the EU and GMO's, where instead of dealing with real problems they are focusing on the DNA of "dust".

[parsley]

&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;EC_style8ptBK&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[URL="http://parsleysnotebook.blogspot.com"](GMO Flax Issues)[/URL]&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[parsley]

I asked the question, charliep,

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

I agree that it is not desirable.I say yes I agree.

You said no.

Few would.

I think it is very bad publicity and has attained nothing positive for Canada.
Pars

[parsley]

Nobody can put words in your mouth, fran, when you have such a big foot in it. LOL

Now, that's funny. LOL Your pars

[Fransisco]

Looks like you're having trouble seeing things again pars. Perhaps you should loosen up the blinders.

[charliep]

If Canada gives in as you suggest, what does this mean for the
future? Every time Europe or some other country wants to put a
stop to Canadian imports, they simply have to pull a boogie man
out of the hat and we slink away with our tail between our legs.
Realizing Canada fought long and hard developing processes in the
organic industry to satisfy European demands, what is to stop them
from highlighting a regulatory issue to stop shipments of Canadian
organic product.

Even more a bigger issue is what if the above is the result of bio
terrorism - someone who tainted a sample to achieve a political
outcome? Can you guarantee this didn't with a zero percent
chance of this happening? What does this say for the future on this
front?

Perhaps I should note that nothing has actually stopped flaxseed
shipments to Europe. What has happened is the discovery has
added a new layer of risk of having a shipment rejected in a
European port and from the commercial side, no one will take this
risk or will build into their pricing offers to farmers. Will be
interesting to see how plays.

You asked the question and I provided to the both questions. We
may disagree but that is fair in a discussion.

[parsley]

"If Canada gives in" ? Huh? Sweet mornin' diarrhea.

It was never negotiable! There never was an option! It's not a weighing haggle. Or a grade haggle. Or a forex haggle. it's import legislation.

I cannot conceive that you even consider that international regulations are not to be respected.

Canadians knew what the regs were going in. The exporters know. Even I knew, and I'm a mere Triffid-removed dullard female.

Either farmers/aggies and Triffids are willing to abide by other countries' legislation, or we are not.

I have no problem with a protest run.

But defending a stealth run?

Go home and put a hot water bottle on your ethics, charliep. lol

Now that should have you up pacing tonight at 3am! In fact, as you read this, remember you read this spell when you awake at three ahy em. After all, I'm a witch. LOL, Pars