Flax 2

[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.

[parsley]

What if an American grower shipped the Triffid into Canada and sold it in Canada, but didn't disclose it was Triffid, with the purpose to destroy established Canadian shipments of flax into the EU food market and step in and take over that market ?

Intent is often looked at.

What was the intent of the Manitoba grower to not grow one of the countless varieties of available flaxseed, to instead choose Triffid, when he was aware of the risk he was putting the established market in?

What does it say about him? Was it his intent to destroy the EU food market? Was he paid by someone to trash the food market? Was he paid a lot of money by someone to advance the breeding of GMO flax, "because, looksee, we already have a contaminated market so what's the big deal" ? Was there intent to injure one of the trade in Germany, for example?

Intent. I'm off to a funeral. So it will give plenty of time for others to reply, and fran likes a quick reply. LOL

[haveapulse]

As I understand, the renegade seed was released as a trial to the then "Value Added" seed growers. There is a known list of who received the genetics. Despite advise to dispose of the seed obviously some or one did not. As I understand with current legislation the act itself is not illegal. The rest we can suppose, is now our history.

I expect the EU will raise their GMO tolerance at some point. Hopefully sooner than later.

I expect GM0 technology is here to stay.

Our challenge as producers is to define our success in the system so we can survive in a world with varying patent laws and as a result production costs.

Our statistics prove that as production increased, gross income grew and net income remained often lower to static, when adjusted for inflation quite dismall actually, and
often requiring subsidies in our recent history to remain postive. As a result, I expect the most important question to the farming community is the question of the share of the pie.

For farmers we an see the success of the CDC program to bring us positive net returns. Pulse crop levys have created publicly owned varities and technology which insured that revenue from this intellectual property remained in farmers hands. Revenue which now often exceeds that of the GMO Cinderella crop canola.

And so our role as responsible producers to the next generation is to question who wins and who looses with technology. Indeed to open another can of worms if allowing total control and direction to be only in the control of shrinking in number often collaborative world oligopolies is a wise way for the future.

Did we go too far when we abandoned our public breeding programs?

Does the success in the CDC pulse program speak volumes to the success of public breeding programs properly administrated.

No grower levy on seed, amazing revenue on the crops, great varieties now world class!

The question to me is more about who owns the technology as they control the miracles and the direction of the miracles for the future. As contract peasant growers we are amazed, but we should contemplate soon how to benefit equitably from the process.

Before we go Rah Rah we should reflect.

[haveapulse]

Ps Thanks Pars and Fran for a fabulous sparring..great stuff on both sides... Rah Rah to you both!

[cottonpicken]

Flax should not be eaten
I don't care what any health nut says

[checking]

If you are going to eat flax, you need to chew it to receive any of its nutrient value. Otherwise its value is a little fiber. No teeth, then invest in a grinder. What I really wanted to ask is "Are there any organic wild game hunters out there?"

[parsley]

"organic wild game hunters"

That's funny.