The NEW World Dictators..... Hitlers Reborn

[lakenheath]

As for you questions. As never once said to put a stop to crop technology and advances and never once said companies should not be allowed to market new technology because they make money. Give you head a shake before you ask stupid questions like those.

And give you head a shake before you state that HT has reduced errosion. Farming practices have reduced errosion not GM canola. Not sure where your fuel savings come from in regards to GM either. If I grew GM wheat I don't think my fuel bill would change nor would I increase erosion on my farm. Comments like that make you sound foolish.

Also, since when has 10 years of consumption of GM food been a sufficient time period to determine any negative impacts on health of humans?

[lakenheath]

I also suppose you and Northfarmer would not be opposed to GM Wheat being grown in Canada?

[WoolyBear]

With the introduction of glyphosate resistant canola, the markets to Europe closed and subsequently, the market is losing 300 million dollars in trade yearly, totalling over a billion dollars in canola sales to Europe since 1997. Markets in Japan and China have also severely declined.

Most of our markets have shunned the GMO canolas, or have significantly discounted it. Something that we need to remember though, the EU will do anything to exclude another countries products, and the Japanese demand the premium products and will naturally discount the rest. The hoop gets small in a big hurry when we started producing large amounts of GMO canolas. Naturally too Monsanto will praise the value of GMO products, look at the $15/acre TUA they make! Give me a break, I haven't seen any improvements on a field scale on any of the varieties I've had experience with, certainly not enough of an ecoomic improvement to pay for $5 /lb seen PLUS the TUA.

[wd9]

Lakenheath, all of canola's major markets accept GMO canola, including Europe now which accepts oil from GMO canola. Value added crushing in Canada is not a bad thing you know. Japan has and will continue to buy 2 to 2.5 million tonnes per year of GMO canola consistently for many years. Tariffs and non-parity of tariffs are the single most important factor in determining whether soy or canola are bought in other countries. China buys GMO canola if the price with tariffs is comparable to soy, and with the 15% tariff, soy wins most of the time along with the requirement of the feed from the meal. Did you know soybeans came from China in the first place? India, which is the biggest oil importer has tariffs of 45% on soy oil and 75% on canola oil. Tough to compete. The average bound tariff on canola is 57% with peaks as high as 300%. It isn't about GMO and canola - it is about trade and tariffs. But I guess that would be outside my farm and I don't look there.

90% of the producers in Canada use HT canola. Why, because it is easy to use is probably the #1 reason and from a herbicide standpoint, they know it works.

I agree RR wheat wouldn't be a fit like RR canola and my ag practices wouldn't change if it was approved. Marketing would be a challenge with RR wheat and the benefits to me as a farmer may not outweigh the consequences. If wheat with the ability to fix it's own nitrogen came out, that would be a different story. I digress.

But this discussion is about who makes the decision on whether or not new crop technologies get approved. Who is the dictator that says so. I still don't know what you stand for and why you are so angry at everyone and everything that seemingly opposes your view - which so far the best I can figure has been to not approve anything and take the precautionary principle.

So stop talking down to everyone and actually take a position. How should new crop technologies be approved, and who should do them?

[northfarmer]

well put WD9....and ditto.....

..on RR wheat....I thought from my own perspective it would offer little value to my operation, yet I felt I also did not know enough about the technolgy and the process by which it would be implemented and managed to take an educated position....seemed the debate was quickly polarized..and then ended...

...seems that though RR wheat may or may not have been of value, I hope we do not stop looking at other traits we could derive and share value with such as drought, insect and disease reistance in wheat and other cereals we grow in Canada...

......my point about the challenges to biodiversity is that not only sceince and technology challenge the planet, but sometimes the mere actions of mankind and in some cases the normal passing of time can have the same or more drastic effects....

I do not always look to blame capitalism, and the actions of inquisitive and probing scientific minds as the cause for all our societies problems....

[lakenheath]

It is frusterating getting a point acrosss to you WD9. You make statements referring to me not wanting any technological advances approved. I never said that. I am not a closed minded socialist like Pusleman figures.

I merely said we have to challenge certain ones like the terminator gene and RR wheat. To challenge does not mean to put up a permanent road block, it merely means to make sure the science does not effect us down the road. It means to research beyond what companies tell us.

When I post studies like Round-up being banned in Denmark it does not mean I want it banned in Canada. I am just creating awareness. Is it better to be blind to some of these facts and ignore them?

I must admit you know more about growing and selling canola than I do. I have never grown or marketed the crop. That being said, I take back what I mentioned about the canola markets. The informatoin I read must be severly out-dated.

[wd9]

I absolutely get your point, awareness needs to be created, research must continue on and discovery of new issues with current and older technologies will become even more frequent as the tech gets more complicated. Findings on the effects of specific approved drugs are many and varied with law suits of course. But there comes a point with all things to pull the trigger and release the technology.

There has been a dramatic 'cooling off' period with the introduction of new traits over the past ten years. All we see is a rehash of existing approved technology. And this has been a good thing - to a point. Scientists now do the trait thru GMO technology, mark it, and then breed conventionally to achieve the desired trait (quite simplified explanation). Muta-genesis (use in clearfield products), although not listed as a GMO, involves tearing apart cells and scrambling genes thru radiation and 'stumbling upon' the trait by definition is not GMO, yet in the scientific community is far more contraversial than the exactness of individual gene manipulation. Because of a simple definition, it is considered safe and non-GMO. Murray please correct any of this if it is wrong.

So along comes GURTs - actually about 15 years old also - like seedless g****s and watermelons. The ability to switch characteristics off and on. As we look forward, does our current system of approval by science thru CFIA and Health Canada, and the industry then (not in legislature or in an Act) determine if socio-political-economic factors are a benefit or a detriment to accepting and using that product. RR wheat in the US was stopped by the growers in the US because Canada didn't. It would have been safe for food, feed, and the environment, but economic indications showed it would be more harm than good, so it never appeared. It worked - painfully - but it worked.

Suppose the purely science based system put the product, RR wheat, on the market in the US and Canada but only the US decided to grow it. The industry in Canada decided too many sales would be lost and decided not to grow it. (This came really close to happening by the way) Canadian farmer gets some RR wheat from the US, gets into Canada's supply. Major problem because of adventicious presence issues. How do we get around some of these issues, and there are many more. Right now, no-one knows exactly how to move forward.

RIONAP (Responsible Introduction of Novel Agricultural Products) is a step in the right direction but is difficult to enforce. With canola, a new trait requires approval in the USA, Mexico, China, Japan, South Korea and the European Union before approval in Canada. Also countries where canola has gone the last three years Iran, Pakistan, India, North Africa (Morocco, Tunisia), and Thailand.
o Asia: Afghanistan Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, North Korean, Pakistan Philippines, Thailand Taiwan, Vietnam.
o Middle East: Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Iran Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates.
o Eastern Europe – Czech Republic, Russia.
o Central America/Caribbean - Barbados, Bermuda, Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, Neth. Antilles, Ste. Lucie, Trinidad-Tobago.
o Africa: Djibouti, Guinea, Kenya, Mali, Morocco Mozambique, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe.
o South America: Brazil, Chili, Ecuador, Guyana, Venezuela.
o Oceana: Australia, New Zealand.

Yup a long list. 80% of Canada's agricultural products are exported so we rely heavily on trade. Approvals are complex, but the system is in place and the industry does regulate itself because it knows the damage an unregistered canola variety can do.

This is the importance for farmers to grow only registered varieties in Canada. If there is any doubt, call the canola council and ask. One rogue variety can destroy a major market in an instance, or at the very least a 6 million dollar cargo ship. This is important.

Lakenheath, I know you appreciate the complexity of this subject. How to move forward in a cautious - yet still move forward is a challenge bigger than you and I can imagine. It is working pretty well for canola, will it work for other grains? Probably in 10 to 20 more years. This issue will move slowly, but nudges like the terminator gene keep the awareness high and the discussions like this going.