Test And speaking of junk science. Test

Pulse & Special Crops

Tools

And speaking of junk science.

Test
Apr 17, 2010 | 12:09 31 I note all your comments always come back to genetic engineering and you seem to give all other forms of biotechnology a passing grade. The rules are not driven by consumers but rather government regulation and the customer (read processors/retailers) contractual terms.

I highlight for your consideration that biotechnology and genetic modification are much more than genetic engineering. If you look at the CFIA definiton, genetic modification includes traditional conventional plant breeding. In the new world, it also includes things like mutagenesis. From recent days, there are many other plant breeding tools on the horizon. Fight the fight you want over genetic engineering but there will be much more happening in the future. Will Canada be a player or simply an observer? Reply With Quote
gustgd's Avatar Apr 18, 2010 | 22:23 32 http://www.ggc-pgc.ca/docs/2010-04-08%20Letter%20to%20Conservative%20Caucus.pdf

highlights

A Bill like this hurts our current negotiations with the European Union, whom we are trying to convince to adopt a science-based model. It will hurt our economy as it sends a chill through the companies who invest in research and innovation, and most of all, it will hurt our farmers, who depend on new technologies to reduce pesticide use, increase yields and farm more sustainably

How do we "to require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted"

Parsley since your so into hypotheticals.


What if some raging granny from southeast Switzerland decides she doesn't like our crops? What if this granny has a grand daughter in Geneva who happens to decide trade rules?
What if this granddaughter loves her granny, and would do anything for her?

Parsley
When your perennial wheat dream happens to have some GMO material in it, what if our granny in Switzerland doesn't like it? Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2010 | 04:59 33 gusty, I got on a rant on another thread I just replied to, so read it to keep your bp's up, and I'll try to get back to this thread tommorow. Do you want a sweet-talking reply or pure rage? LOL

Didn't expect the bill to pass, huh?LOL

I heard it would for sure, so I sat on my hands, but decided am going to do a little work on it if I can at all help to make sure another market doen't go down the tube. Like tritcale. Or rye. I presume your aim is to infect every crop with stacked genes and render it "Buyless Grain", (kind of like Payless Shoes.)

Even if your youthful misguided inspiration renders your reason numbed, at the very least be like the president of Monsanto and buy organic. Your kids will thank you some day. Pars Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2010 | 06:57 34 Perhaps you can take satisfaction that leadership in
biotechnology will not come from Canada. Already too much
bureaucracy and too little money. Developing a genetic event
costs $100 million - $20 to $40 million of which is dealing
with regulatory issues. Most crops in Canada are just too
small. Wheat is likely the exception but innovation highly
unlikely to come from Canada.

When I look at this legislation, what can be accomplished in
60 days? Who will do the evaluation? Why just genetic
engineering? On the science side, plant with novel trait rules
apply to all new technologies/crops. But I guess all other
biotech solutions are considered safe or perhaps better, more
politically acceptable.

At the same time we are not dealing with issues like more
virulent mycotoxins as a result of fusarium graminearium. But
nature poisons are good and a system that ignores their
development even better. Looking forward to the howling this
fall when CGC tightens the specifications on fusarium head
damaged kernels. Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2010 | 07:14 35 Will note that Europe has made the political decision to import genetically
engineered soybeans. Does this mean GE soybeans are safe in your mind?

Another comment from work I have seen is that more acceptance of genetic
engineered crops for livestock feed (one step away from people food) but less
willingness for people food.

I note I use the hot button GE but there are money other plant breeding
technologies in use/coming. All will be used in the future. US, China and
Australia are the countries to watch although Europe is also very active. Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2010 | 10:10 36 Gusty and charliep,

Both of you have probably watched Food Inc., and of course puked in your sleeve in total disbelief.

But what was really really interesting about Food Inc. was that Walmart poked it's head up as it builds its' monstrous food empire.

Gambling.

Walmart are confident gamblers. They have the cash, the experience and the partners. And they are sourcing organic food as no corporation has ever sourced organic food before. It should tell you something if you take the time to listen.

I went into Regina and shopped for groceries in Walmart. They are in total expansion mode with regards to food. When I first went in the food aisle, there were refrigerated units of conventional eggs, but as I mosied along, the huge space alloted to organic eggs at $3.99 dozen was large, ...and almost emptied. I bought 2 dozen.

Good or bad...
from Walmart's point of view.....the product was sailing out the door.

Good or bad....
from the farmer's point of view, he is getting double the money for his eggs.

Good or bad,
from the consumer's point of view.. he is obviously happy...I bought organic eggs and charlie could buy his conventional eggs.

Win win.

What is astounding is that Walmart took a stand on Food Inc., promoting organics. Walmart is run by Sam and he has a little more experience than I. But he's putting quite a bit of faith and cash on the organic option.

What I was getting at in another previous thread is this:

Canadian farmers, viewing from my grandmamma's perch, would be better to sit up and take notice about the negatives of gentically modifying their food crops. If we contaminate all crops grown in Canada with genes that other countries will not buy, there is a good chance, considering Walmart works hand in hand with China,that China will supply the likes of Walmart with the organic food we will be unable to supply.

China is busy busy buying land in all parts of the world. They have new access to Africa's land and element resources, for example for growing organic crops. They are shrewd business people.

No buyer IS FORCED to buy Canadian,

Growing numbers of consumers worldwide, buy from Walmart. Canadian farmers can be Walmart's accomodating-suppliers as well as Walmart consumers.

Or Canadian farmers can be soley consumers.

Take your pick. Pars Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2010 | 11:15 37 With a properly functioning certification system, Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union could easily supply 100 % of the organic market in Europe. They are low input users already by necessity (no money). The favorate topics during my Ukraine visits was organic marketing (four years ago now). They know the market exists and are figuring out how to access.

China is one of the biggest investors in biotech. They almost approved genetic events for rice but backed off commercialization. Full bore ahead on research however.

Perhaps one of the North America's organic industries challenges is to tighten up their supply chain. Sounds tight to me now but it would seem to me that more is needed. If you can't commit to 1 in 10,000 seed count on triffid flaxseed, then how can you commit to being pesticide free when you like in a community that sprays and mover product potentially through a supply chain with commercial grain? Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2010 | 11:55 38 [URL="http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v28/n1/full/nbt0110-8a.html"]China and GE Rice[/URL] Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2010 | 12:26 39 " If you can't commit to 1 in 10,000 seed count on triffid flaxseed, then how can you commit to being pesticide free when you like in a community that sprays"

Sounds like a perfectly logical legal argument in an organic claim of market loss charliep. Appreciate you've presented it so legibly. Pars Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2010 | 12:39 40 "China is one of the biggest investors in biotech"

I agree. But to assume they will eat biotech food themselves is folly.

Perhaps they won't be hesistant to ship it to say, Tibet, or feed it to their overabundance of $400.00/yr peasants, I agree, but the Chinese elite and middle class now emerging will be very cautious about modified food.

They will embrace it for industrial puposes. They would be stupid to not learn technology developed by and paid for by Western culture, and renourished with Western research grants and partner/mentors to continue to experiment further.

They are shrewd people and highly intelligent. IMHO Pars Reply With Quote
gustgd's Avatar Apr 19, 2010 | 21:32 41 You use the Chinese as a model society and I get called a fan of Central planning. Do even read what you write? Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2010 | 07:04 42 Model!!

gusty, China and Tibet are at odds, so the reference was not complimentary.

China and their peasants are at odds, so the reference was not complimentary. Reply With Quote