Genetically Modified Organisms

[charliep]

Actually the wrong guy to ask on technology. My role is simply to
listen to what people say and report.

Other things that someone like me may contribute to is having a
science based methodology for evaluating new plant breeding
methods including risk assessment. The basics are in the CFIA
document.

Other issues that will be important will be detection, tolerances and
segregation within supply chains.

A final thing that an economist might contribute to is a cost benefit
analysis of farmers new adopting biotech technologies.

With few exceptions, very few are completely opposed to GMO in the
forms described above. The issues are market access, internationally
used scientific basis for evaluating and approving and finally from the
farm side, contribution to lower risk and more profitable businesses.

[charliep]

Interesting article on the impact of biotech on trade. Note the real issue will be the adoption of technology by countries outside Europe, Australia and North America and from there, some agreement on tolerances.

[URL="http://www.seedquest.com/news.php?type=news&id_article=10195&id_region=&id_ category=&id_crop="]seedquest[/URL]

[wd9]

Perhaps charlie if the discussion was limited to transgenic species it would be a lot less confusing. or maybe i just am.

That is, taking genes from one organism and inserting into another to create a new organism not occuring or would not occur in nature. How the legislation and not only national acceptance but international acceptance of those products can be acheived.

Issues like adventitious presence of living modified organisms (LMO) can be dealt with.

Genetic Use Restriction Technologies and their applications to remove outcrossing and illegal use of technologies and also many of the export issues of LMO's. Imagine that, no volunteers. I'd buy that.

So many topics.

[charliep]

You must have been a meeting I was at with barley plant breeders and they made the same point.

A goal would be not to limit plant breeders in their access to technology and further to have internationally accepted science base rules to evaluate biotech techniques. From there, the industry needs to be able to communicate with consumers about the processes to ensure safe and nutritious food.

When I look at competitors (barley is my project by the way), I see US corn which will yield an average over 160 bu/ac (assuming no frost event) with some possibility of being closer to 170. US corn is going full bore on biotech with multiple traits.

Australia is using the full gamut of biotech solutions to improve its barley production with things like salinity and drough tolerance as important as herbicide tolerance.

Europe is working in the area of barley hybrids (or least from what I have been told).

To be competitive, western Canada needs to continue to move forward. The solution may not be transgenics but suspect the long arm of regulation may catch a lot of other bio-tech breeding ideas off side. there has to be a rule based approach based on science.

[wd9]

Much of the trait development here and internationally is thru reverse engineering in the non traditional crops. Markers are inserted in the genes desired and those are isolated and observed using traditional techniques of breeding to acheive the desired effect. Gets around a lot of regulatory issues.

Of course this method is still not able to do trans species breeding of any kind, at least none i'm aware of. Bird and fish thing.

[parsley]

Is it producers that will foot the financial ramifications that do result from a cavalier growing and marketing approach?
<p></p>
<p class="EC_style8ptBK"><strong><a href="http://parsleysnotebook.blogspot.com">(Take a Peek at the E.U.'s GMO Detection and Notification System in Action Pointing at Canadian Origin)</a></strong></p>

Should Canadian producers depend upon regulatory syestems of other countries to police exports?

What do you think of the EU process of gene detection notification?

[wd9]

Looks like its you and me Charlie as the rest see only headlights. Much like the government with regs on everything like functional foods, where hardly a useful one exists even though there are thousands of products on the shelf waiting.

Issues have become so diverse and complex interms of these regs and what should be done that the attitude of... "Maybe someone else can deal with it i'm so confused, i'll stick my head in the sand" prevails. And has, for a long time. This does not make the readers and posters of this site unique.

Oh well, Damn the CWB.

[parsley]

I'm a dear in the headlights? LOL

So far it is committees who wring hands. And are bogged down with planning the menu for the next meeting.( tic.) But meantime buyers want precision product.

Canada cannot afford to lose markets.

I suggest farmers design their own regulatory audit, where producers are responsible for selling what they claim they grow, and sign their names to that effect in their part of the marketing chain. Farmers should design an entire process that incorporates all elements of a sale, but he makes entries on only as far as HE progresses on that sale.

Why not write a GMO audit trail, as a farmer for the salepath he may follow?

Right from field, through cleaning, through trucking, through delivery(elevator or terminal, or mill etc, through transportation, through port, to ship etc.

A simple online form to run off.

The point is, if farmers don't, someone else will do it in THEIR best interest, and farmers will be left paying.

Government purchasing of GMO testing equipment. Until they change their "advantage of Canada": legislation, they should be responsible for paying.

Recorded shipments not only incurr legal responsibility but prevent the present sideways-eye slippage.

Exports: "probe-testing shipmemts at pre-loading, (terminal etc.) with recording GMO instuments, random and specific, enter the results on a blackberry which will be automatically recorded on the export/import manifest, with it cc'd in the email, to both the buyer and the shipper and CGC. And then issue the shipment a barcode if it passes.

And digitally sign it with, "If there's anything else we can do for you, just let press REPLY."

That way if you want to shoot up your GMO wheat with caraway flavor, the heat of cayenne, the iron content of spinach, and surprise of castor oil, well, the unintended buyer has less chance of all that joy of being surprised.

[charliep]

I will note the discussion is actually in two parts.

The first is the ability to do plant breeding research and from there an internationally accepted way of bringing a new technology forward (commercialization) that provides value to the market (could be an agronomy benefit for a farmer or a consumer desired trait).

The second is how new technologies can be moved through the market in identity preserved system (if required) at least cost logistics if segregation is required. I note this happens every day with specialty oil canola, malt barley and heavan forbid, protein/grade segregation on wheat. The other level of agreement is on tolerances.

[charliep]

By way of interest, if the variety triffad were introduced today, it would likely make it through the EU regulatory system. The genetic marker talked about has gone through review this year.

<a href="http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902569389.htm">marker genes, nptII and aadA</a>

The EU accepts biotech crops (including transgenic/genetically engineered) provided it moves throught their regulatory processes. You may want to take me up on my bet but I will wager there are more dollars spent on biotech in Europe than Canada accepting the European market size is 10 times Canada's size. I would also wager their breeding programs are better funded.