Flax 2

[Fransisco]

So if you can't have your 100 per cent GM free muffin then even if the whole rest of the world wants GM muffins they shouldn't be allowed to have them. That makes a lot of sense.

[parsley]

Oh fran, you are dealing with what you will think is an unreasonable consumer. And the ones who buy food flax in Germany are just like me. It must be difficult for you.

I regret this postscript, but... if you happen to organize a mass vote to establish that the "discerning dining majority" that you are associated with, are demanding prions in their lamb chops, by feeding yearling lambs other ground dead lambs, why, I'd still say no, even if you are just dying for the prions. I am feeling a bit stubborn here. Pars

[Fransisco]

Sorry Pars but you don't speak for all Germans. And stuborn is not the word that comes to mind.

[rockpile]

Pars, I'm with you on this one. In my own practice, I kept chemicals and artificial fertilizers to a minimum, though it was never possible to eliminate them because of the soils, climate and surroundings. However, I have a friend in west central AB who usues clover ploughdowns and good rotations and has the most beautiful tilth and organic soil odor in the world, that in itself should be a tourist attraction. GMO is Jurassic Park, take genes from a Salmon and from a tomato, paint them on a 22 shell and fire it into a petrie dish, and wow, you have the flavor savor tomato, that can withstand a few more degrees of frost, though it has a wierd texture and 0 taste. A natural progression, I think not, I have yet to see a Salmon get horny and mate with a tomato. As far as marketing your unique product, void of the mainstream agribuss culture, you have my support to go forward on your own, Pars, you don't need the CWB and they don't need you. Times have evolved and the world changes. Are you ready for tomorrow and the challenges yet to be discovered? Rockpile

[furrowtickler]

This was just a crock, to send the price of flax down so they can rob flax growers blind of perfectly good flax for half of what it is worth. Just the buyers playing God.

[Fransisco]

Changing the subject a bit, let's say it is triffid and somebody did grow it intentionally. Two things we don't know yet but let's say that's the case. Would this farmer have actually done something illegal? People grow unlicensed varieties all the time, wouldn't' this be the same thing?

[parsley]

I guess as a farmer rockpile, I encourage farmers to think about the ethics of their farm management.

Farmers are often in the front seat of plant experimentation.

There has been so much playing around with genes. Genes in people and in plants and in animals.

The genome is the collection of all human genes and their puzzle is soon put nicely together. People are smart and science will march on and that's the way it should be.

And there is protein in people and in plants and in animals, too

And of course, scientists are studying the protein in everything.

When you study all the proteins in say a human, or say in a tissue under a microscope, when you add up all of the proteins, is called a proteome.

All of the proteins in rockpile is a human proteome.

You are probably aware of the huge proteomics project (proteomics is a large scale study of proteins)in Alberta. A wondrous proteomic experiment because all of a sudden when you establish rockpile's proteome,and furrows and wd9's you can begin to modify the protein.

And the same with plants. The proteome can be modified.

So now it's not just genes that are being modified, it's also the protein that can and will be modified.

You probably know this but the flax folks are scientifically having flax poked and prodded by TUFGEN:

http://www.saskflax.com/newsrel_tufgen.html

With so much change for any farmer to even read about, let alone try to keep abreast of, if you are anything like me, it's hard to keep informed. How far do I go? Are there boundaries? maybe the leaders of our farm organizations could assume a conscientous leadership role in encouraging discussion on the importance of ethics in our farm grower-breeder programs. Will you think about that?

We're front line experimenters, folks.

I am speaking of HOW we should do things. What to be aware of. Our obligations. Our duties. Pitfalls. Our responsibilities as food growers.

Scientists struggle with the ethics of what they do and they discuss it.

And so should we. Pars

[parsley]

Glad I got the piece written just in the nick of time for what was bound to next come out of your pen:

"actually done something illegal"

Not all things legal are ethical, fran.

But you know that.

[Fransisco]

Yes, I am well aware that what is legal and what is moral are two different things.

My standard of morality is human life.

Because of this I believe that applying science to food,food production and farming is ethical and moral. The practical application of science in these areas has been tremendously positive for mankind. Our standard of living and life expectancy are a direct result of it.

Putting limits on science means putting limits on our own human potential. That would be wrong. There is nothing particularly virtuous about stagnation particularly forced stagnation.

[parsley]

Scientific laboratory experimentation should be wholeheartedly encouraged. And I have always supposted it.

But let's not conclude that Nature itself is a laboratory that belongs exclusively to humans.

Ethics includes questioning if man's ability to create a novel creature, (simply because he can), that exhibits, say, an ape's cranium stuctured on the thorax of a cricket and made mobile by the legs of a giraffe, even SHOULD be created.

A(ape)C(cricket)G(Giraffe) could be one of a kind that can be replicated in a petrie dish. It is a fascinating venture, and one that is hard to resist!

fran, we could use a human cranium. HCG

Now, I realize you would declare it 100% safe.

But there are ethical considerations.

For example,how does HCG physically fit into our apartment block?

Hunting season? "Jeez, I didn't mean to shoot it but it was dragging these lonnnnng legs along behind it"

Oops, mating season popped up...and the HCG'ers are verbally demanding his and her mating clinic expenses be paid for by Medicare, what do we do?

Lots of questions.

Unless of course, fran, you have a grand plan to patent nature, in which case you own it all.

[Fransisco]

Science is not just for our amusement it serves a practical purpose. If we can do something and it doesn't hurt anyone then we should do it.

That's why I go back to the safety record of gmo's. There are all sorts of positives to the technology and so far zero negatives to weigh against them.

When the ledger book is so heavily weighted to the positive side I'd argue that it is unethical for us to stop using it.

[Fransisco]

Anyone going to take a stab at the legal question?

[Fransisco]

Anyone going to take a stab at the legal question?

[parsley]

Let's say, for the purpose of addressing your question, that the Triffid grower was a Manitoba farmer. And he intentionally grew a GM variety of flax. Say he sold it to an elevator. Did they mix it into a huge batch of grain? Knowingly or unknowingly, or "no questions were asked" kind of dealings? There is an ethical issue and a legal issue

Did the farmer declare it was Triffid?

If he grew Triffid, you can bet he also knew that Europe is Canada's best flax customer and that the EU regulations do not allow GM flax in their food flax.

What did the trade's end agreements specify? Were the agreements followed?

Thunder Bay would catch the gene marker. Did they notify the exporter/trade? Did they close their eyes?

If they were notified, there is a paper trail, but if they weren't, was it because Triffid was mixed into so many other shipments, they decided it was commercially better to shut up about it?

And did the trade notify the EU trade that iffy food flax was on its' way? And so on.

Was the Trade the same company at both ends?

Did the Triffid producer have a goal of sprinkling contamination into the Trade in order to legitimize higher GMO tolerances in a market not allowing it,and to therefore expand the sale of GM flaxseed?

So when it you look at years of litigation, and wrangling, is court the answer here?

Only governments and mulinationals can afford to wrangle for years in court.

But meantime, farmers in Canada fume at $6.00 bushel flax. Because somebody contaminated their good reputation as a food flax supply.

Was it intentional? Who knows/

What about the guy who quietly sells treated seed to a terminal during busy harvest? Intent?

Agreements and business ethics are only as good as the people doing them.
And that, franny, includes farmers.

Intent is hard to prove and you know it.

But don't be surprised if farmers want to finger who was responsible for screwing up their EU food market in '09. If it was a poor innocent banjo-pickin' farmer from Manitoba's backwoods who didn't know Norlin from Triffid, the sob cost them a pile of cash. Pars

[Fransisco]

I'm not asking the "ethical" question of growing Triffid. Just the legal one.

Is it legal to grow? I'm guessing it is.

As to a declaration at the elevator, what if the elevator doesn't ask? The stuffs not in commercial production so why would they. The farmer could also just say an unlicensed variety.

My guess is that even if someone did grow thousands of acres of it intentionally it would be very difficult to go after him.