By that measure, you will also want to include in the database traits that are under development in France and recently destroyed.

See, e.g., Vandalismes de laboratoires publics, http://www.marcel-kuntz-ogm.fr/article-vandalisme-labo-public-52897421.html

Partial (machine) translation:

“On the night of 22 to 23 June 2010, the Laboratory of Plant Genome and Development at the University s Perpignan, CNRS and the Institute for Research and Development (IRD) has been vandalized: tag “No to GMO” were inscribed on the growing rooms where the plants have been largely destroyed; freezer storage at -80 ° C have been disconnected and emptied. Several researchers have lost several months of experimentation and unique biological material.”

You may note the lack of information about the plants and traits involved.

Paranoia in this realm of science is so pervasive that good, solid work — and solid progress — is kept under wraps. Private-sector paranoia is largely driven by concerns over competitors, but literally *all* research in the field is threatened by vandals.

In fact, the ‘high value’ targets for anti-biotech vandals would be the trials which might boast of the greatest achievements.

Accordingly, the most successful experiments are those most likely to be hit by anti-biotech vandals. Conversely, the best advances will be those most aggressively hidden. Why? The most notable success with agro biotechnology is the most notable blow to the vandals’ Public Relations narrative.

Between the lines, this means that efforts to construct a database of Really Good Traits (RGTs) in the pipeline is doomed to be incomplete and distorted, for political/security concerns that cannot be quantified.

If you continue in your efforts to construct a trait database, you’ll need to add caveats such as this for researchers who wish to make use of it.

Activists are protesting this move, claiming that sending GM trees to the US ‘will destroy New Zealand’s ‘clean and green’ reputation’.

People who don’t know much about biotech often claim that the only traits made possible by genetic engineering are traits for large American corporate farms – traits that encourage the use of herbicides. (of course, they’re ignoring Bt, but that’s not the point here)

What I’d like to do with such a list is show what traits are possible, what’s being done in countries around the world. To show, definitively, that it’s not just Monsanto, that it’s not just corporate science for corporate farms, that it’s not just in the US. The traits are out there – we just have to collect them!

It’s pointless to look at what New Zealand does. Its biotech research efforts are almost completely canceled by the efforts of its anti-biotech militant vandals, but feel free to waste your time.

Although looking through the list of phenotypes is pretty interesting – shame that not only mispells but also the same thing worded differently are all indexed as unique (I looked up yield initially and got 1 result, because it appears yield is listed in many different ways) – once things do approach commercialization however there will be more disclosure (as per the WUE trait slated to come out shortly) which I think is what Anastasia is more looking for – traits developed (a minor handful), rather than traits in development (literally hundreds per year per company, of which I’d guess only a small percentage will see a second year of testing (or a third))

That reminds me I need to look up that New Zealand grass….

If you are content to have *only* commercialized GM crops, and insist on complete information, your one-stop shopping is
http://www.cera-gmc.org/?action=gm_crop_database&

I note that there’s a 2010 update. It’s an astounding resource.

Fly in the ointment: the database also includes crops with novel traits developed through mutagenesis, conventional breeding, etc., because Canada regulates them in the same way as ‘GM’ crops.