Very much agreed,...even with the best data and best science they will not change. They have closed their mind in this area and their opinion is based on their feelings. But I bet they use google everyday and let google sell their usage data because they don't even understand that either.
I want to go but my son has an event in southern PA. I am just not sure I can make it. Can you take good notes for me and share?
Not sure if this could be it's own thread - I was there for the morning but had to leave at lunch time.
Some interesting stuff - this is just my interpretation of what was said.
Last year they submitted USDA application which was rejected. They are about to resubmit an expanded application that is like 350 pages with references within 'the next few days' and within 30 days they will know if it was accepted or needs to be expanded again. After that there is an open comment period of 60 days. That would be this winter if the app is accepted. Beyond that they think 2-5 years (also may have said 1.5 years) for approval (the same number that has been floating around for several years now) probably because that's how long it takes to get GMO crops typically approved. For USDA approval the baseline is whether it is more or less dangerous than traditional breeding programs.
They also have to submit (or have submitted, not sure) an app to the EPA. THe main question here is whether or not the oxalate oxidase is a pesticide. THey're confident it's not, but apparently some lawyers at the EPA don't agree. If so, they will need some kind of a '1 time exemption' for approval.
They are most optimistic about the FDA app which should take less than 1 year for approval. That will be submitted in the next few months supposedly. oxalate oxidase is in tons of food, so they think it should be simple to prove safe.
They were also very excited about a research paper that came out that shows something like 7% of plant species are naturally transgenic. It found transgenic genes in walnut.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31542868
Basically what they have been doing in the lab is also happening in nature.
They did reaffirm the tree will not be patented, but they are going trademark the tree for 'quality control.' So you can sell seeds or do whatever you want with the trees, but unless they are tested and proven to carry oxalate oxidase you can't call them the "suny esf tree' or whatever name they decide on. Seemed reasonable to me.
SUNY ESF has planted thousands of trees for seed/seedling production at this point. They have been planting the transgenic seeds in their fields.
(my opinion) They are going to have good diversity and a lot of seeds available if and when the tree is approved. I personally am not sure it is necessary to be planting 'mother trees' based on the scale of their work. They also have been establishing long term study sites, and educational forests.
This all just my interpretation of the morning meeting. In my opinion it is probably a little further off from getting approved than they think. I still think this the best or only hope for the american chestnut. They did say the national foundation was going to start helping out, but it is impressive what the NY foundation has done on their own. This year they raised 83k to support a full time worker that is building all of the orchards with the help of the school and students.
