Us Patent Pending For Genetically Modified Marijuana

[hyzerflip]

Here's a great (and recent) debate from Intelligence Squared I bet you'd enjoy:

 

[hyzerflip]

This is pretty old news but i will add one link here for those that dont know. The us has been producing gm cannabis seed for quite a while now, columbia is one of the largest purchasers of the seed.

https://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/gm-marijuana-sells-for-10-times-price-of-natural-weed/

No offense but I'm not taking the word of some random blog - I don't for a second believe that this is true.

 

[SeaF0ur]

Sure, can we discuss the common assumption that is completely unfounded, yet commonly held, that the rules that govern a normal vertical movement of genetic material will in some way apply to genes moved in a lateral fashion? How the entire basis of GMO "safety" is based on unfounded assumptions? Or the fact that your so called independent studies are anything but...

European network of scientists for social and environmental responsibility
Statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety
http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/
(contains 57 citations)

GMO-Science Takes a Blow as Studies Are Retracted

You have probably heard that an Elsevier journal has retracted the Seralini study which showed evidence of harm to rats fed a GMO diet, despite admitting they found no fraud or errors in the study.

This journal had also just recently appointed an ex-Monsanto employee as an editor

Alas, the scientific ground on which the genetic engineering of plants is built may now be shakier than ever, thanks to GMO promoting scientists like Dr. Pamela Ronald. A recent article in Independent Science News1 questions whether she'll be able to salvage her career, as two of her scientific papers (published in 2009 and 2011 respectively) were recently retracted.

With the loss of her credibility, and the domino effect these retractions are likely to cause within the scientific field, the entire chemical technology industry stands to suffer a great blow to its scientific integrity.

In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium on genetically modified foods, and said that long-term independent studies must be conducted, stating: "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. …There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation…"

Council for Responsible Genetics Statement
RE: AAAS Board Statement Against Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

We are deeply concerned that a scientific body such as the AAAS would take such an action without giving a complete review of the science behind its statement.

As scientists, they should know that citing a few studies in favor of their position can no longer be considered a compelling argument. Indeed, the AAAS Board did not conduct a thorough analysis of the literature, nor did they include studies that could cast doubt upon their conclusions.

The truth is we do not know conclusively what the long-term effects of growing and consuming GM crops will be. There have been very few systematic and independent animal studies testing the safety of GM crops. Since 1992 the FDA policy considers the insertion of foreign genes into the plant genomes of crops as the equivalent of hybrid crops-crosses within the same species-and therefore exempt from the regulations on food additives.

Yet we know enough to have valid concerns. The plant genome is not like a Lego set; it is more like an ecosystem. You simply cannot predict the safety of gene inserts unless you do the testing.

Most GM food studies have been generated by industry and it is the industry itself with sole access to so much of the data. There is little funding of independent studies on the effects of GM foods, and those few scientists who have engaged in such studies and reported concerns are discounted. Their concerns cannot be resolved without serious and independent scientific study.

We are particularly concerned that at a time when conflicts of interest have become a major concern in science that the AAAS Board would not openly divulge that some in the AAAS leadership appear to have longstanding ties to the biotech industry. Since these ties have not been transparently disclosed, it is unclear whether there could also be ties to industrial concerns that might influence decision making of the AAAS leadership. Surely any reader of their position is entitled to such facts in considering their position. We advocate for full disclosure of all such ties by AAAS leaders.

The fact that no deaths have been attributed to GM crops does not mean they are safe. We do not see deaths associated with bisphenol A (BPA) and yet there are hundreds of studies pointing to risks. Risks that consumers have carefully considered when choosing whether or not to buy products containing BPA.

The Council for Responsible Genetics has supported GM food labeling for three decades. It is an integral part of our Genetic Bill of Rights. We further support an active move toward a comprehensive and independent risk assessment for GM foods; not the untenable default state that GMOS are safe. The public interest is not served when industry supported studies and government cooperation with industry are cited as proof of product safety.

Before we reach any conclusions with regard to GM foods, they must be studied. That’s a basic scientific principle that the AAAS Board appears to have circumvented with their statement. In the meantime, consumers have the right to know which foods have GM ingredients before they choose what to feed themselves and their families.

All we ask is a simple label, just like every other civilized society. In fact, any product exported to the UK or AU or any number of countries already have GMO labels designed and waiting to be printed to comply with their respective labeling laws.

Who are the main pro-GMO people in our government?

 

[ZombieSlave]

Agenda 21 is very real

 

[suomynona]

No offense but I'm not taking the word of some random blog - I don't for a second believe that this is true.

I wouldnt either, there is more info out there if you care to research it. Grow well!

 

[caveman4.20]

Sure, can we discuss the common assumption that is completely unfounded, yet commonly held, that the rules that govern a normal vertical movement of genetic material will in some way apply to genes moved in a lateral fashion? How the entire basis of GMO "safety" is based on unfounded assumptions? Or the fact that your so called independent studies are anything but...

European network of scientists for social and environmental responsibility
Statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety
http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/
(contains 57 citations)

GMO-Science Takes a Blow as Studies Are Retracted









Council for Responsible Genetics Statement
RE: AAAS Board Statement Against Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods


All we ask is a simple label, just like every other civilized society. In fact, any product exported to the UK or AU or any number of countries already have GMO labels designed and waiting to be printed to comply with their respective labeling laws.

Who are the main pro-GMO people in our government?


View attachment 464322

Thank you for the post.


Sorry no science link, I expect to be corrected when I say USA make 90% of world's GMO and USA consumes 90% of the GMO made in the WHOLE WORld read that in Urban Garden about 6 years ago

We will if not already have diseases or disorders or maybe a new word with new category of problem directly related to consumption of GMO

 

[caveman4.20]

Agenda 21 is very real

I couldn't open it with out flash 7 or higher java script

 

[suomynona]

I couldn't open it with out flash 7 or higher java script

@caveman4.20

Just do a google search with the keywords:

Monsanto, Pilgrims Society, CFR, FED, JP Morgan Chase

You will likely be overwhelmed if you havent researched some of this stuff before.

 

[Seamaiden]

With 2000 Global Studies Confirming Safety, GM Foods Among Most Analyzed Subect in Science
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/

The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks To A New Trillion-Meal Study
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/

How come actual dietitians aren't able to find good long term studies? Also, some of the "over 1700" studies included in the .xls document are studies like "consumer attitude towards GM foods." That, my friend, is not a safety study. Look, I've simply copied and pasted the titles of the first 25 studies that are being cited.

Validation studies and proficiency testing
Potential for the environmental impact of transgenic crops
Experience with environmental issues in GM crop production and the likely future scenarios
Experience with environmental issues in GM crop production and the likely future scenarios
Industry scientists look for benefits, not risks
Plant biotechnology in China
Safety assessment of genetically modified crops
Hazard identification and risk assessment procedure for genetically modified plants in the field—GMHAZID
Clinical risk assessment of GM foods
Genetically modified foods: a taste of the future
Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods
IMPROVING RISK ASSESSMENT FOR NONTARGET SAFETY OF TRANSGENIC CROPS
Five years of Bt cotton in China - the benefits continue
Genetically modified foods, science, consumers and the media
Regulatory control of genetically modified (GM) foods: likely developments
ECONOMIC, ECOLOGICAL, FOOD SAFETY, AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE DEPLOYMENT OF BT TRANSGENIC PLANTS
Consumer perception of risk associated with eating genetically engineered soybeans is less in the presence of a perceived consumer benefit
The release of genetically modified crops into the environment
Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: the mediating role of trust
Genetically Modified Corn— Environmental Benefits and Risks
A Framework for Assessing the Risk of Transgenic Crops
The release of genetically modified crops into the environment
Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries
Risk assessment of GM plants: avoiding gridlock?

When a professional with decades of experience under her belt cannot find a single good (which by default in this scenario means long term, which means longer than 90 days) study on GM protein behavior in the human gut/system, something's wrong. Where are those studies? I could go on about what this person has learned about her professional association and how it has been undermined by these very same corporate interests, but I'll save that for another day.

I've bolded those that appear to directly address concerns in order to demonstrate my own points here. And I think that some of the study titles belie the truth in and of themselves. The fact that approximately half of what I've listed here actually appear to address safety concerns, and not 100%, is troubling when they're being used to boost safety declarations.

If you look a little more deeply into this 'report' you'll find that it wasn't written by the UN - It was submitted to the UN by an organic ag advocacy group.



We need to double food output in 30 years - We'll need access to every tool available to pull that off.
http://www.ipsnews.net/2010/12/developing-countries-must-lsquodoublersquo-food-production/

Thanks for the discussion!

I'm one of those organic advocates. :eek: I also pay attention to inequality and poverty issues, which are the real issue, not how much food we grow. Just here in the U.S. we toss out roughly 1/3 of ALL FOOD produced. I think that number is actually higher. Yet, we have people who can't get 3 squares a day. Why is that? It's not because we're not producing enough food. In many of these countries where we've got thousands upon thousands of people starving, countries like ours are sending them food, plenty of it. Yet it either doesn't get to them, or (this is key!) they can't afford to buy it. Again, to reiterate, food production is not the problem, poverty is.

Then, there's the issue of these GM feedstocks, which are what comprise a massive portion of our arable land here in this country. What are those feeds going for? For cattle that are being kept on awful forage, so awful that a rancher can't sell his beef like that, he's gotta get that beef fattened up. In CAFOs, that come with their own set of problems. And in the meantime, wild horses are rounded up and removed from that wonderful cattle range, to be put into pens and held until someone adopts them. But, there's currently a surplus of tame, trained horses because people can't afford to keep them anymore, the rescue organizations are full.

It all ties together in a really sick way, and while I could go on, I'll stop here.

 

[suomynona]

Just here in the U.S. we toss out roughly 1/3 of ALL FOOD produced. I think that number is actually higher. Yet, we have people who can't get3squares a day. Why is that? It's not because we're not producing enough food. In many of these countries where we've got thousands upon thousands of people starving, countries like ours are sending them food, plenty of it. Yet it either doesn't get to them, or (this is key!) they can't afford to buy it. Again, to reiterate, food production is not the problem, poverty is.

amen!

There is enough food 100%

Financial objectives are the problem!

 

[Seamaiden]

<--- still poring over study titles, because if I find any that relate to these proteins behavior in the gut, I've gotta share that with the pros. :)

 

[caveman4.20]

Another prime example of poor people not being worthy of eating nutritional food. Imagine How many Upset People there would be if welfare gave out nutritional food

 

[SeaF0ur]

Tests cannot verify that a GM protein introduced into the food supply for the first time will not cause allergies in some people. WHO and UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) offer criteria designed to reduce the likelihood that allergenic GM crops are approved.

They suggest examining a protein for:

Similarity of its amino acid sequence to known allergens
Digestive stability
Heat stability

These properties aren‘t predictive of allergenicity. But according to experts, their presence should be sufficient to reject the GM crop or at least require more testing.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM corn fails all three criteria.

For example, the specific Bt-toxin found in Monsanto‘s Yield Guard and Syngenta‘s Bt 11 corn varieties is called Cry1AB. In 1998, an FDA researcher discovered that Cry1Ab shared a sequence of 9-12 amino acids with vitellogenin, an egg yolk allergen. The study concluded that "the similarity... might be sufficient to warrant additional evaluation."

No additional evaluation took place.

Cry1Ab is also very resistant to digestion and heat. It is nearly as stable as the type of Bt-toxin produced by StarLink corn. StarLink was a GM variety not approved for human consumption because experts believed that its highly stable protein might trigger allergies.

Although it was grown for use in animal feed, it contaminated the US food supply in 2000. Thousands of consumers complained to food manufacturers about possible reactions and over 300 items were subject to recall.

After the StarLink incident, expert advisors to the EPA called for "surveillance and clinical assessment of exposed individuals" to "confirm the allergenicity of Bt products."

Again, no such monitoring has taken place.





Institute of Science in Society : Dr. Mae Wan Ho corrects some misconceptions about the risks of horizontal gene transfer from GMOs and calls for an urgent review
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMDNA_Does_Jump_Species.php

Horizontal gene transfer – DNA being taken up and integrating into the genome of cells – came under scrutiny by the European food Safety Authority (EFSA) in relation the safety of antibiotic resistance marker genes in genetically modified (GM) crops grown commercially or entering the market. EFSA failed to reach a unanimous opinion. The published Statement [1] acknowledged scientific uncertainties, but claims it is “unlikely” that antibiotic resistance genes in GM crops pose health and environment risks.

However, two senior scientists on EFSA’s biohazard panel, which carried out the assessment jointly with the GMO panel, did not agree with the conclusion and issued a minority opinion included in an annex to the Statement. The key issue is the probability that the antibiotic resistance genes could transfer from plant to bacteria. The two scientists stated that the adverse effects cannot be assessed, and that the probability of gene transfer from plants to bacteria ranges widely “from unlikely to high.”

National Institute for Health : Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670

Last year, doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found Bt toxin in the blood of:

• 93 percent of pregnant women tested
• 80 percent of umbilical blood in their babies
• 67 percent of non-pregnant women

The study authors speculate that the Bt toxin was likely consumed in the normal diet of the Canadian middle class -- which makes sense when you consider that genetically-engineered corn is present in the vast majority of all processed foods and drinks in the form of high fructose corn syrup. They also suggest that the toxin may have come from eating meat from animals fed Bt corn, which most livestock raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFO, or so-called "factory farms") are.

These shocking results raise the frightening possibility that eating Bt corn might actually turn your intestinal flora into a sort of "living pesticide factory," essentially manufacturing Bt toxin from within your digestive system on a continuing basis.

Mercola : Dangerous Toxins From Genetically Modified Corn Found in Blood of Women and Fetuses

Monsanto's genetically modified "Bt" corn is equipped with a gene from soil bacteria—a pesticide that breaks open the stomach of certain insects and kills them. Bt toxin has now also been detected in the blood of 93 percent of pregnant women tested; 80 percent of babies; and 67 percent of non-pregnant women.
Mounting evidence shows that the Bt-toxin produced in GM corn and cotton plants is toxic to humans and mammals and triggers immune system responses.
The only human feeding study every published on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was conducted on Roundup Ready soybeans, in which some of the subjects were found to develop Roundup Ready gut bacteria as a result of consuming GM soybeans.
Monsanto are about to introduce a new variety of sweet corn that includes the worst of both worlds: two types of Bt-toxin, and the Roundup Ready gene. So besides containing built-in insecticide, toxic Roundup herbicide will also accumulate in the kernels.

Institute for Responsible Technology : 65 Health Risks of GM Foods
http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks

A Review on Impacts of Genetically Modified Food on Human Health
http://www.academia.edu/542384/A_Review_on_Impacts_of_Genetically_Modified_Food_on_Human_Health

Human Health Risks
• Allergenicity Many children in the US and Europe have
developed life-threatening allergies to peanuts and other
foods. There is a possibility that introducing a gene into a
plant may create a new allergen or cause an allergic
reaction in susceptible individuals. A proposal to
incorporate a gene from Brazil nuts into soybeans was
abandoned because of the fear of causing unexpected
allergic reactions [22].
• Unknown effects on human health: A recent article
published in Lancet examined the effects of GM potatoes
on the digestive tract in rats [23, 24]. Moreover, the gene
introduced into the potatoes was a snowdrop flower
lectin, a substance known to be toxic to mammals.

GMOS ARE INHERENTLY UNSAFE
There are several reasons why GM plants present unique
dangers. The first is that the process of genetic engineering
itself creates unpredicted alterations, irrespective of which
gene is transferred. This creates mutations in and around the
insertion site and elsewhere [54]. The biotech industry
confidently asserted that gene transfer from GM foods was
not possible; the only human feeding study on GM foods
later proved that it does take place. The genetic material in
soybeans that make them herbicide tolerant transferred into
the DNA of human gut bacteria and continued to function
[55]. That means that long after we stop eating a GM crop,
its foreign GM proteins may be produced inside our
intestines.

 

[hyzerflip]

Tests cannot verify that a GM protein introduced into the food supply for the first time will not cause allergies in some people.

I think you're setting a mighty high standard. Crops created through 'traditional' cross breeding can also cause allergies in some people - Are you suggesting all new varieties created through any breeding methods should be tested to this degree? This is, imho, completely financially and logically unreasonable.

 

[SeaF0ur]

nope, just the ones with lateral genetic movement, because that CANNOT happen without manipulation that breaks molecular chains in unpredictable ways.

 

[hyzerflip]

nope, just the ones with lateral genetic movement, because that CANNOT happen without manipulation that breaks molecular chains in unpredictable ways.

Lateral genetic movement, aka 'horizontal gene transfer' is not specific to GM and transgenic crops. It has been happening 'naturally' since the beginning of life.

Futhermore, horizontal gene transfer is not at all a necessary or even common component of any given allergen. I'm open to any evidence you may have to the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

 

[caveman4.20]

Lateral genetic movement, aka 'horizontal gene transfer' is not specific to GM and transgenic crops. It has been happening 'naturally' since the beginning of life.

Futhermore, horizontal gene transfer is not at all a necessary or even common component of any given allergen. I'm open to any evidence you may have to the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

I wish I was half as smart as you appear to convince you how full of inconsideration you are!

 

[caveman4.20]

nope, just the ones with lateral genetic movement, because that CANNOT happen without manipulation that breaks molecular chains in unpredictable ways.

View attachment 464556

 

[SeaF0ur]

Allergens are only one facet. It is clear that you are not reading any of the sourced material I am providing. Which takes this out of the realm of a discussion.

65 Health Risks of GM Foods : Institute for Responsible Technology

Part 1: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods
Section 1: Evidence of reactions in animals and humans
Section 2: Gene insertion disrupts the DNA and can create unpredictable health problems
Section 3: The protein produced by the inserted gene may create problems
Section 4: The foreign protein may be different than what is intended
Section 5: Transfer of genes to gut bacteria, internal organs, or viruses
Section 6: GM crops may increase environmental toxins & bioaccumulate toxins in the food chain
Section 7: Other types of GM foods carry risks
Section 8: Risks are greater for children and newborns

 

[ZombieSlave]

If you care to watch the ring of power, I would suggest in doing so.