Flax?

[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