Flax 2

[Fransisco]

Oh, the horror...

unauthorised genetically modified (FP967 suspected: <b>0.05-0.1 %</b>) linseed with raw material from Canada and the United States, dispatched from the Netherlands

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/portal/index.cfm?event=searchResultList

[Fransisco]

<b>Health Canada</b> has notified the Crop Development Centre, University of Saskatchewan, that it <b>has no
objection to the food use of the transgenic flax line CDC Triffid</b> - FP967, which has been developed to be
tolerant to sulfonylurea herbicides, specifically triasulfuron and metsulfuron-methyl. The Department
conducted a comprehensive assessment of CDC Triffid – FP967 according to its Guidelines for the Safety
Assessment of Novel Foods (September 1994). These guidelines are based upon internationally accepted
principles for establishing the safety of foods derived from genetically modified organisms.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/alt_formats/hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/gmf-agm/ofb-098-047-a-eng.pdf

[parsley]

You feel so strongly about the issue, fran, so may I suggest:

1. As a farmer, write the EU officials, tell them how stupid their laws are, and tell them what they can do with their regulations. They'll appreciate it.

2. And also write the companies who buy flax from Canada and tell them you think they have turned a blind eye to imported flax, therefore Triffid flax is half their fault. They'll appreciate it.


3. Also write EU trade associations if you think all the EU companies are cheats, and suggest they are buying linseed flax and passing it off as food. They'll appreciate it.


4. Then write the EU testing labs, and if you feel strongly, tell them they have no right to random test or you will sue, as their results are always hokey.They'll appreciate it.



5. Warn the EU that from now on, what you personally have developed<p></p><p class="EC_style8ptBK"><strong><a href="http://www.aitc.sk.ca/prog_scifairs.html">(here)</a></strong></p> will be used by Canada to compare to EU gene testing. It will make their day.

[charliep]

Parsley

Has the EU lab only idenfified the gene marker NPTII or have they identified the actual genetic material? Could the genetic marker have come from somewhere else - there are other crops which have used this genetic marker that have been approved in the EU. I also understand this genetic marker occurs naturally in things like molds. Could it have been introduced this way?

The EU does have the right to regulate their industry/imports on things like genetic engineered crops. Canada has its own regulations on Novel Trait Crops. What Canada does have the right is to ensure proper investigation and scientific process under international rules. Internally, Canadian regulatory agencies should be doing the investigation you suggested at the end of the previous thread - follow the audit trail on the seed and spot genetic testing of flax inventory.

[Fransisco]

Looks like someone doesn't like it when people put facts on the table that put the whole thing in perspective.

[Fransisco]

Here are the hotlinks for the blackberry folks.

[URL="https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/portal/index.cfm?event=searchResultList "]https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/portal/index.cfm?event=searchResultList [/URL]

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/alt_formats/hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/gmf-agm/ofb-098-047-a-eng.pdf &quot;&gt;http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/alt_formats/hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/gmf-agm/ofb-098-047-a-eng.pdf &lt;/a&gt;

[Fransisco]

From AGRIWEEK

Nothing much happened last week to clear up the confusion in the flax market created by the discovery in Germany of GMO material in food products made with Canadian flax. There was no official ban on flax imports and no new regulatory requirements were announced, but new orders from regular European flax mills have apparently dried up.
Importers are as much in the dark as exporters. Some traders who specialize in small-lot sales to Europe talked about a complete shut-down of the European market. Orders placed earlier are being shipped and accepted, but there are few or no orders for the period just before the Seaway shuts down for the winter, which normally brings a late-season surge in business as users stock up for the winter. It was confirmed that the offending material was a marker for the GMO flax variety FP967, developed in 1998 at the
Crop Development Centre in Saskatoon but never commercially grown. Rumors that a cargo of Canadian flax was
prevented from unloading at a European port have not been confirmed. The incident has attracted disproportionate attention from the ecomaniac fringe, which in parts of Europe is the majority. The Greenpeace branch in Germany and other anti-GMO organizations were pressing for harsh regulatory action. Greenpeace said the ‘contamination’ is “uncontrollable” implying an urgent health hazard. The harm being done by European eco-extremists was bad enough, but they were joined by such as the pipsqueak National Farmers Union and the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network; the latter called it “a major international contamination incident”.
Though European regulators love nothing better than to regulate, the discovery of trace amounts of illegal compounds in Canadian flax does not seem to be enough to trigger any restrictions. This is not StarLink corn. More sensitive testing equipment is responsible for many contaminant discoveries.

The GMO incident may soon end up as a side show to the real problem facing the flax market. It is the persistent,
long-term decline in demand, which is really a decline in the demand for flax products. The growth part of the flax business is in food additives and ingredients, but it is the smallest part and incapable of sustaining flax consumption at more than a fraction of recent rates. Consumption of linseed oil continues to drop due to the availability of cheaper and more abundant substitutes. Paint alone at one time required 4 to 5 million tonnes of flax a year, three times total world production today. Efforts to find new uses for flax have been vigorous but not very rewarding.
But could the flax market disappear? Sure it could. Half the linseed flax in the world is grown in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Production has survived in this area because of the few cropping choices available and because of the relatively low per-acre returns from other crops for which the region is adapted. U.S. flax acreage has fallen steadily for the same reason that the U.S. ceased some years ago to be self-sufficient in oats: per-acre returns are not competitive with those of other crops.

The market for prairie flax is extremely precarious because it depends almost entirely on a handful of processors in Germany, Belgium and Holland. In the last three crop years roughly 80% of Canadian exports, about 435,000 tonnes a year, have been to Europe. Last year shipments to the U.S., the only other significant buyer, dropped to 81,000 tonnes from 118,000 in 2007-08. Domestic use in 2008-09, or at least what went through commercial channels, was just 27,000 tonnes.

It is not likely that lower prices will do much to stimulate demand. As in most industrial processes, the cost of the first-level raw material input is a very small part of the cost of finished products. Theoretically the price of flax could drop to zero without lowering the price of linseed oil enough to recapture former markets. It is not uncompetitive
prices, but more desirable properties which have caused the displacement of flax-derived oil and meal by newer substitutes. The flax export market is in the hands of literally a handful of people who live in Europe and run linseed plants. If even a few of them decide that there is not enough profit in it, they will close up or convert to processing something else. European buyers do not need a GMO incident to stop buying Canadian flax. They would readily find ways to work around any new restrictions provided there is a demand for the products at viable prices. On the whole the situation
does not look very good, but the biggest trouble is the lack of information about who is thinking what.

[parsley]

Morris said it as you see it:

" attention from the ecomaniac fringe, which in parts of Europe is the majority."

The ecomaniac fringe are the people who eat food flax. They buy it by the bags. Yup. Stupid sobs's.

They are the flax eaters. They are the buyers. They are the customers. The ones who lay the $$ on the table.

Noww tell me again what a sorry bunch of losers they are so we can be rid of customers like them. The, and only then, can Western Canadian flax farmers all rush to sell into a declining linseed market.

Logic at its' best.

[parsley]

charliep,

The main reason I am so adamantly opposed to the CWB is because they legislatively control my market. And for them, and I mean this as a sincere opinion, farmers' need or wants are the last consideration when it comes to any Wheat Board decision. Farmers need to be freed from legislated monopoly control.

I am also opposed to the present CFIA legislative control because farmers are the very last consideration when it comes to decision making, even though CFIA desions have terrible effects upon us. The Government of Canada is a player-partner in all kinds of enterprises that they do not want to invest in and then watch fail, and are therefore not in any way, able to regulate freely without bias.

I have grown critical of the CGC because, although I do credit that they legislatevely have a "in the interest of farmers" clause in their mandate, it does not seem to guide them. For example, leaving an entire industry unprotected at this time in world agricultural shifting without a backup plan, is a breathtakingaway CGC action, and one that is not in the interest of farmers.

So, as you can read,you will conclude that I am a whining critic. I am. But it is because, under the rule of all of these agencies, I do think that farmers are subjected to regulations which do not work in the farm community's interests.

We come last.

And that is why our best hope lies, not in change, because it is not in their interest to change, but in working to speak for ourselves,and not asking them for money so we have obligation.

We are the wealth creators and should be able build our own path. And that does not include waiting for Government's findings and answers and
solving, so we can wait wait wait to be told what we should be doing.

They won't. At least not is what is in OUR interest. Your sales will be based upon food aid price giveaways. You will pay for overstaffing that helps shift around bureaucrats.

We create massive wealth, you know. We need to learn how to shift our weight in the economic bed.

Parsnip

[Fransisco]

Pars, the only one talking about how stupid the customer is is you.

This is what I would think customers would want to know.

1 Is there GM flax in this muffin? Yes

2 How much? .05-.1 per cent

3 Is that amount safe? Yes,in fact even if it was 100 per cent gm flax it would be safe.

You really aren't giving consumers a lot of credit if you think they'll all stop at question 1. Some will but most will be curious about 2 and 3 and I think be very satisfied with the answers.

I would think that if you were truly concerned about customers you would want to reassure them that Canadian flax is safe to eat,which it is. Instead of trying to scare the pants off them.

[parsley]

I am one of the lunatic fringe. Oooo, you can tell by my, ...er....grocery shopping.

I want to buy NON-GMO food.

I AM that customer, the one who buys non GMO that you seem to want to question, but I'm not in your store because I don't want to buy your kind of flax muffins. I also pay a premium for NON-GMO muffins.

So I'll reply on behalf of myself:

No, I don't want 2% GMO'd flax, nor 5%.

Nor do I want to buy 13.7 % GMO'd potatoes in my bag, either! <p></p>
<p class="EC_style8ptBK"><strong><a href="http://www.scidev.net/en/news/gm-potato-uses-frog-gene-to-resist-pathogens.htmlFXYU">(Granted, I love the old fashioned mashed potatoes and gravey too much to be tempted.)</a></strong></p>
You don't seem to like beets. You probably don't even want beets in your grocery bag, but maybe you advocate preferences are only for beet haters; but you'll devour the potatoes which I do not prefer. (I won't insist on you buying beets.)

So your position is, every consumer should accept, at the very least, a % of GMO flax and even be receptive and accepting to increasing it to 100% GMO flax, because it is, according to the word of an anonymous poster named fransisco,... 100% safe.


Indeed.

[parsley]

I wouldn't miss trying to make this one work, lol:

http://www.scidev.net/en/news/gm-potato-uses-frog-gene-to-resist-pathogens.html

Seems to off the radar for me now, so I'll post an excerpt because I think it will be tantalizingly appetizing for franny, and will also provide some background meaning to the intent of the original link in the post:

"A chemical that South American frogs excrete from their skin could protect potatoes and other crops from a range of diseases, according to biotechnologists in Canada.

Researchers at the University of Victoria inserted a modified frog gene into potato plants to make them produce the chemical."

[Hopperbin]

Actually google gm flax contamination and Parsley's notebook is the first to come up. So hopefully parsley and others can have some good insight, advice for consumers, it is a declining market one that western Canada has stuck to supplying for economic reasons. So Fran you should also be stating your facts there if not already, could be lots of economic fringe consumers and activists visiting there at the moment, my opinion.

[Hopperbin]

Oh crap did it again and the Greenpeace bastards are first in line.

[parsley]

charliep

The gene markers...ah, yes.

The trade can hunt down a gene marker buried in the Nile if it froze on Christmas morning if they chose.

All ports have gene markers.

The flax could be from GMO plots, both recorded and hidden anywhere in the world. TriffidHugh handed Triffid seed out like candy to school children.

Some Dutch farmer could have pocketed a head of Triffid when he visited a Canadaian farm and then went home and multiplied it.

Or most likely it was an importer who bought linseed and sold it as food.

That would be my pick.

And everyone winked. ha ha .

There is no blame
And won't be any,
There is no responsibility
And won't be any
And the pissing dance that is going on is merely optics.

GM Triffid farmers looked the other way, the trade looked the other way, the government regulators looked the other way, and all smelled fresh and clean until someone farted in the GM church, and now they sheepishly eye up each other.

No one owns the smell.

You know that, charliep.

But the obvious point for everyone, and I mean even the skeptics, is that our food is part of an experiment that is not controllable, and of which whose importance is not at the top of ag's agenda. Damn it.

We just saw what happens when shuffling feet replaces regulatory and agronomical and commercial responsibility.

Take a second look.

Food.

I'll leave you with a point I consider important.....there are a rare few who do not have some doubt about the unintended consequences of genetically modifying food.

And especially when we get to the eventuality when no one will stand up and says they are responsible for a gene clustermucking mess......because no one knows how to fix it.

Food.

As farmers, it's our most important consideration. IMHO

pars