[MPWG] Fwd:

Sun Oct 24 12:47:04 CDT 2010

I agree with Robin wholeheartedly.  This is an extremely dangerous and
ill-advised precedent.   It is quite presumptuous to put regulatory agencies
in charge of white-listing living organisms allowed in the country.  I'm
sure, in the current frame of mind, many medicinal plants would not make the
list.

Many of the problems associated with invasives occurred because these plants
or other organisms were strategically and massively introduced for erosion
control or biocontrol by government agencies, not because they were grown as
crops or by gardeners.,.  Are we going to put these same agencies in charge
of "white-listing" life?

And here's something else to consider.  The "regulation" of genetically
altered plants is actually a path of De-regulation.  Ultimately, the
corporations behind the patented, genetically engineered plants petition for
NON-regulated status by APHIS.  (For a current list of genetically enginered
non-regulated plants or those that are pending noregulated status see
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html ).   That means they
can no longer be regulated.  Already, genetically engineered eucalyptus is
petitioning for non-regulated status.  Eventually, this list may include
other genetically engineered forest trees as well plants such as corn
engineered to grow human insulin or other pharmaceuticals.

Does attainment of non-regulation mean they are automatically
white-listed?

Let's look down the road.

best regards,

Gena Fleming
Jade Fountain Healthcare

On 24 October 2010 12:01, MoonBranch Botanicals <moonbranch at earthlink.net>wrote:

> While I understand the concern regarding the introduction of new problem
> plants, this approach seems a bit bizarre. More puzzling is the attention
> paid to this issue regarding the movement of living things across
> geopolitical (meaningless from the standpoint of the natural world)
> boundaries, while these same governments pay little attention to the
> equivalent biological "weapons of mass destruction" like the introduction of
> GE salmon and other genetically modified organisms into our biosphere.
>
> These governments seem far more interested in the bottom line of
> multinational corporations than the common good. We see this agenda played
> out daily in policies that are enacted and that while sounding beneficial,
> often upon deeper investigation we see that they play into the financial
> goals and bottom line of these same corporations.
>
> It is not my intent here to place blame or to paint all of those vested
> with the authority of overseeing our interests with the same broad brush.
> However we must remember that these same entities were often the very ones
> responsible for the introduction of many of our greatest plant pests today
> such as kudzu and multiflora rose. The bottom line here is that agencies are
> staffed by people and people make mistakes.
>
> Once again, I believe the focus of those charged with protecting our
> interests should go after real and imminent threats instead of potential or
> even imaginary ones. USDA, FDA, and the EPA should be looking at those
> organisms that have no track record outside the laboratory and as such have
> to potential to unleash unimaginable consequences.
>
> Regards,
> Robin A. Suggs
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Conrad Richter
> Sent: Oct 24, 2010 3:53 AM
> To: mpwg at lists.plantconservation.org
> Subject: [MPWG] Fwd:
>
>
> *"WHITE LIST" OF AUTHORIZED PLANTS (Canada and U.S.)*
>
> The U.S. and Canadian governments are planning to introduce a "white list"
> of plants that are allowed entry into each country under a joint Canada-USA
> greenhouse certification program. The United States Department of
> Agriculture (USDA) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) are
> requesting comments from stakeholders on a proposal to replace the current
> list of prohibited plants with this new list of allowed plants. What this
> means is that if a plant is not on the allowed list it cannot enter the U.S.
> from Canada or vice versa. Many thousands of plants including many herbs
> will be barred entry under the proposal.
>
> This change is highly significant for both countries because it appears to
> be a first attempt to implement a controversal "white list" approach to the
> control of cross-border plant movement. The proposed "white list" is far
> more restrictive than the current "black list" of prohibited plants that has
> been in place since the inception of the binational Greenhouse Certification
> Program in 1996. The proposed "white list" of allowed plants includes less
> than 1000 plant genera, out of over 12,600 genera of flowering plants known
> to man. The current "black list" of prohibited plants has fewer than 100
> genera.
>
> Some suggest that the powerful anti-invasives movement in the U.S. is
> behind the push to introduce "white lists" of plants that are allowed into
> the country. While invasives are a problem for both countries, the new list
> will affect thousands of plants already in the horticultural trade, and will
> limit the introduction of new plants to gardeners.
>
> For gardeners, it is worth reflecting a moment on how many new plants that
> you have enjoyed growing over the past 10-20 years, and how many of them
> might not have been available to you had this "white list" been in place.
>
> Gardeners, herbalists, commercial growers, and the gardening and herbal
> media are encouraged to submit comments.
>
> *The deadline for comments is October 31, 2010.*
>
> *United States*: Email your comments to Michael D. Ward, Senior
> Accreditation Projects Manager, USDA-APHIS-PPQ (
> michael.d.ward at aphis.usda.gov)<michael.d.ward at aphis.usda.gov?Subject=GCP%20Comments>
>
> *Canada*: Email your comments to the CFIA (horticulture at inspection.gc.ca<horticulture at inspection.gc.ca?Subject=comments>
> )
>
> The relevant documents, including the proposed lists of authorized genera
> and families, are available here<http://www.richters.com/newdisplay.cgi?page=Issues/documents.html>
> .
>
> --
> \_\  RICHTERS HERBS
> / /  Goodwood, ON, L0C 1A0, Canada
> \_\  Tel +1.905.640.6677  Fax +1.905.640.6641
> /_/  http://www.richters.com
>
> Robin Alton Suggs
> MoonBranch Botanicals
> 5294 Yellow Creek Road
> Robbinsville, North Carolina 28771
> USA
>
> Telephone: 828.479.2788
> Email: moonbranch at earthlink.net
> www.moonbranch.com
>              &www.localharvest.org/store/M16074
>
> Member:
> Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project; Farm Partner
> Green Products Alliance
> North Carolina Consortium on Natural Medicines
> North Carolina Goodness Grows/NCDA&CS
> Southwestern North Carolina RC&D Council
> United Plant Savers
>
> "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it"
> - Matthew 7:13
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PCA's Medicinal Plant Working Group mailing list
> MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>
> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to MPWG-request at lists.plantconservation.orgwith the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
>
> Disclaimer
> Any advice given on this list regarding diagnosis or treatments etc.
> reflects ONLY the opinion of the individual who posts the message. The
> information contained in posts is not intended nor implied to be a
> substitute for professional medical advice relative to your specific medical
> condition or question. All medical and other healthcare information that is
> discussed on this list should be carefully reviewed by the individual reader
> and their qualified healthcare professional. Posts do not reflect any
> official opinions or positions of the Plant Conservation Alliance.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20101024/0e5a44a8/attachment.html>