Gmo Cannabis Cup

[Seefdro]

"I put both species in a cup, rubbed really hard while holding my breath, and it just happened, really", that's what my late neighbor said is grandma did when he was young.it is an unknown old heritage species(to me) hybridized with a weeping willow tree with unacceptable voodoo and magic potions no doubt.

Plant voodoo... Wow!

 

In regards to MM voodoo... Would be kew! to extract this molecue and somehow infuse to MM. O_o!

 

"Miracle Fruit"... Will try your grandmas rubbing technique. ;-)

 

"The berry itself has a low sugar content[7] and a mildly sweet tang. It contains a glycoprotein molecule, with some trailing carbohydrate chains, called miraculin.[8][9] When the fleshy part of the fruit is eaten, this molecule binds to the tongue's taste buds, causing sour foods to taste sweet. At neutral pH, miraculin binds and blocks the receptors, but at low pH (resulting from ingestion of sour foods) miraculin binds protons and becomes able to activate the sweet receptors, resulting in the perception of sweet taste.[10] This effect lasts until the protein is washed away by saliva (up to about 60 minutes)."

[trichcycler]

smoking the miraculin might not produce desired effects? not sure.

 

but composting the plant/fruit wil most definitely assist our mj in a unique expression. you source it, I'll buy it and conduct the experiment. seeds only.

 

miracuin=unobtainium 

[Seefdro]

Ok... Sourceing.... Sorcery.

[trichcycler]

a bag of dried fruit, or whole plant would be good too.....

[trichcycler]

Before you protest against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and march against everything which they stand for, it's important to know some of the many ways in which companies and their scientists are modifying nature, patenting it, and profiting from it. First, there's the most controversial method of genetic engineering which uses genes from an external, foreign source of DNA which is inserted into the genome of a crop like corn. Monsanto is the multinational corporation leading the way in this category. Some genetic changes are intended to give the corn insecticide-like properties, but by changing the natural properties of corn, scientists have raised several ethical questions. How do these DNA changes affect the ecology of the environment? How do these genetic changes affect humans' DNA when the corn is consumed? How do these insecticide properties affect the corn's nutrition quality and its ability to absorb nutrients from the soil?

 

Another way to genetically modify crops is to use genes from the same species of crop that is being engineered. This is called cisgenic engineering. One example approved recently through regulatory frameworks was the potato crops developed by the J. R. Simplot Company. The genes are rearranged within the same species of potato to help it resist bruising. This creates less wasted potatoes during harvest and transport, helping feed more people blemish-free potatoes, but how do these genetic changes affect the nutrition quality of the potato, and how are these properties accepted and digested by the microbes in the human gut? How do these genetic shortcuts illicit other mutations in the crop as they grow -- mutations that scientists don't yet understand? How do these scientific shortcuts undermine the importance of agriculture's most important but long forgotten responsibility: maintaining healthy, nutrient-dense soil? There is little discussion about these commonsense questions today in the biotech industry, and that should concern most consumers when they eat this shortcut food.

 

The corn or potatoes might be blemish- and pest-free more often under the genetic engineering model of farming, but the outer appearance does not make up for the crops lacking nutritional quality. If the genetic makeup of a crop is rearranged solely for greater yields and pesticide resistance, then agriculture has forgotten all about the importance of the physiology of the crop itself and its importance in sustaining the actual health of the human race.

 

It's the nutrition in the food we eat that matters, not the empty bulk calories it provides. It doesn't matter how perfectly sequenced crops can be made today. It's their nutrient levels that matter most. A plant may naturally be overrun by pests because the soil is depleted of the necessary ingredients that the plant needs to create its own pest-deterrent properties. Genetic modification doesn't necessarily save the crops. These methods are only masks, hiding the real problems with our food supply -- the poor nutrition quality of the soil that passes on to the plants.

 

Crops can be genetically engineered and forced to mutate faster, but this doesn't provide the crops what they really need inside to function. The health and thriving nature of the human population depend on the ecosystem of the soil and the multi-spectrum nutrition of the crop. If this is being ignored and genetic engineering is being used as a mask to cover up the deficiencies, then humans will continue to suffer tremendously. No safety test can link GMOS directly to disease in humans because the problem with GMOs is that they are fueling a systemic, soft kill of the human race, suppressing immune systems, depleting cellular energy, starving us all of nutrition and healthy gut microbiology.

 

 

Biotechnology uses genome editing to skirt regulations, leaving even more questions

To make matters worse, biotechnology companies are skirting GMO regulations altogether and using a third method to manipulate crop DNA. This method is called genome editing. This is the process by which scientists use foreign genetic material from other plants and insert it with a gene gun instead of using bacteria. The perfect example of this is Scott's Miracle-Gro Company. Under this unregulated method, companies may inactivate a gene in a plant or may make an adjustment in an existing gene. The companies believe these methods are no different from natural mutations and conventional breeding techniques, but they must admit that these changes are achieved much quicker than what could normally happen in nature, potentially impacting the environment around them and the microbiology in the human gut upon consumption.

 

"The technology is always one step ahead of the regulators," said Michiel van Lookeren Campagne, head of biotechnology research at Syngenta, an agricultural chemical conglomerate.

 

Scotts chief executive Jim Hagedorn is happy that his company is skirting oversight as they edit the genome of nature. "If you take genetic material from a plant and it's not considered a pest, and you don't use a transformation technology that would sort of violate the rules, there's a bunch of stuff you can do that at least technically is unregulated," he said in 2013.

 

If the name of the game is about skirting regulations to advance agricultural technology, then have we lost sight, as the human race, of what it means to grow food and enjoy its nutrition for quality living? Is it time to slow down and listen to our crops and respond to them without using genetically engineered masks? Soil and nutritional quality is what we should strive toward, not the most profitable seed.

 

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/048344_GMO_regulations_genome_editing_biotech_companies.html#ixzz3PZUnwGxZ

[Seefdro]

Remember the "super tomato". Made quite the media frenzy a while back.

 

Altered for maximum health benefits.... Much hype=funding=acceptance.

 

In time I do think the GMO tinkering will find the pathways to achieve superior health benefits... Still, long term studies ARE long term for good reason.

 

Yet... Super computers being SUPER for good reason too (enhancements for GMO research). Very cool time to witness advancements, as the merging of these technologies will help the human race. Especially in parts of the world which will see increased drought in the future... The modification could save thousands of people from starvation or related alignments due to poor nutrition.

[trichcycler]

did you used to work for Monsanto?

[Seefdro]

She/he can digest anything, lives in extreme environments... Asexual, sonar, vision like an owl, and can live 500 years (maybe more). Nearly perfect immune system. Also has enhanced cognitive abilities, teeth always replacing themselves along with many aspects of internal and external organs... Cyborg compatibility... Spine modified for external sensory "plug-ins"... Telekinesis, etc.

 

They used me like I used them!

 

Monsanto not happy about excreting MM GMO seeds on human hybred... Every seed was encasd in high-end nutrient which protected and aided in GMO MM seed (bustardos kept that patent). That crossed the line for them and me.

 

It was for the better... So misunderstood.

[trichcycler]

I encase my artificial seeds in a high end nutrient

capsule, sterilized, pure, with its own water supply until commanded to root.(for thought)

[Seefdro]

I encase my artificial seeds in a high end nutrient

capsule, sterilized, pure, with its own water supply until commanded to root.(for thought)

Well, that's what I call culturally acceptable... Bada, dada boom!

[trichcycler]

Offer still stands. I will pay for a variegated cannabis plant, any strain, even hemp. A live healthy cutting is preferred, but a leaf, calyx, flower, stem, root will do, even if dead recently. I've seen them. They exist. Don't be a hoarder

If strange cultivars is your collector thing, I've some doosy's for you to consider in a possible trade too?

[flower pharm]

Offer still stands. I will pay for a variegated cannabis plant, any strain, even hemp. A live healthy cutting is preferred, but a leaf, calyx, flower, stem, root will do, even if dead recently. I've seen them. They exist. Don't be a hoarder

If strange cultivars is your collector thing, I've some doosy's for you to consider in a possible trade too?

just give em double nutes they will verigate for a week

[trichcycler]

sorry, untrue unfortunately.  That's not a genetic anomaly.

[trichcycler]

 

White House Recommends Increased Criminal Penalties for Intellectual Property Crimes

 

 

 

 

The White House today released a white paper on its recommendations for intellectual property enforcement legislation. The recommendations all involve increasing rights and increasing penalties “so as to more effectively address the substantial harm caused by intellectual property crimes.”

 

Recommended changes include:

1.Increase prison term for counterfeit drug distributors;

2.Increase prison terms for theft of trade secrets;

3.Increase prison terms for intellectual property offences that risk serious bodily injury;

4.Clarify that unlicensed streaming of copyrighted material is a felony;

5.Provide the federal government with authority to conduct wiretaps when pursuing criminal copyright and trademark offenses;

6.Create a new right of public performance for copyright owners for sound recordings transmitted by over-the-air broadcast stations;

 

As a reminder, willful copyright infringement is a crime so long as committed either (a) for commercial advantage or private financial gain; (b) by copying or distributing works with a retail value of more than $1,000 within a 180-day period; or © making a commercial work “available on a computer network accessible to members of the public.” 17 U.S.C. § 506. Federal law also makes it a crime to steal, appropriate, take, carry away, or conceal a trade secret or to obtain the trade secret by fraud, artifice, or deception – with intent to convert the trade secret and for the economic benefit of someone other than the trade secret owner. 18 U.S.C. § 1832. The trade secret law creates a criminal cause of action against someone “copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information” or “receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization.” Finally, the trade secret law also creates a criminal cause of action for attempts and conspiracies.

[trichcycler]

The US government's assault against innocent American citizens continues to get more aggressive and just plain strange, with new reports of harassment against honest owners of ordinary lemon trees. Health Freedom Alliance (HFA) reports that officials from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) are now spying on people whom they suspect are in possession of ordinary lemon trees, and threatening them with excessive fines and even federal raids if they refuse to surrender the plants on demand.

Several years ago, Bridget Donovan, who has now been dubbed "The Lemon Tree Lady," purchased a Meyer lemon tree from meyerlemontree.com. A resident of Wisconsin, Donovan purchased the tree legally and in full accordance with all federal and state laws regulating citrus transport, and had lovingly cultivated and cared for her indoor citrus plant for nearly three years.

Then, out of nowhere, Donovan received an unexpected letter from the USDA informing her that government officials were going to come and seize her tree and destroy it -- and that she was not going to be compensated for her loss. The letter also threatened that if Donovan was found to be in possession of "regulated citrus" again, she could be fined up to $60,000.

Donovan was shocked, to say the least, as her tree was not a "regulated citrus." The store from which she purchased it is fully legitimate, and she had done absolutely nothing wrong. But it turns out Donovan and many others who had also purchased similar citrus plants had faced, or were currently facing, the very same threats made against them by the USDA.

Most of those targeted simply surrendered their trees without trying to fight back, Donovan discovered. And while she, herself put up a hefty fight in trying to get honest answers in order to keep her tree, Donovan was eventually forced to surrender it as well. And worst of all, many of those who were told that a replacement tree would be in "compliance" later had those trees confiscated, too.

Why has the USDA been targeting lemon tree owners? The answer is unclear, other than that they are a supposed threat to the citrus industry. And a USDA official admitted to Donovan that the agency has been spying on those suspected of owning lemon trees, and targeting all found to be in possession with threats of fines and raids if they failed to give them up -- and the agency has been doing this without a valid warrant.

"I felt utterly violated, angry, and upset," Donovan is quoted as saying by HFA. "I pay my taxes, I obey the law, and this is how I was treated? I did nothing wrong. I would expect these action (sic) toward someone running a drug house, not someone who owned a lemon tree."

[trichcycler]

UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC. [uS/US]; 12201 Research Parkway, Suite 501 Orlando, FL 32826 (US) (For All Designated States Except US).

DANIELL, Henry [uS/US]; (US) (For US Only)

Inventors: DANIELL, Henry; (US)

Agent: VAN DYKE, Timothy, H.; Beusse Wolter Sanks Mora & Maire 390 N. Orange Avenue Suite 2500 Orlando, FL 32801 (US)

Priority Data: 61/363,188 09.07.2010 US

 

Title (EN) IMPROVED AGRONOMIC TRAITS VIA GENETICALLY INDUCED ELEVATION OF PHYTOHORMONE LEVELS IN PLANTS

(FR) TRAITS AGRONOMIQUES AMÉLIORÉS PAR UNE ÉLÉVATION INDUITE GÉNÉTIQUEMENT DES TAUX DE PHYTOHORMONE CHEZ DES PLANTES

 

Abstract: front page image

(EN)Disclosed herein are transgenic plants that have been modified to express β-glucosidase, and methods and materials for making same. The transgenic plants possess several advantageous features including increased biomass, increased trichome density and increased parasite resistance.

(FR)La présente invention concerne des plantes transgéniques qui ont été modifiées pour exprimer la β-glucosidase, et des procédés et matériels pour leur fabrication. Les plantes transgéniques possèdent plusieurs caractéristiques avantageuses comprenant une biomasse accrue, une densité accrue de trichome et une résistance accrue aux parasites.

[trichcycler]

 

by Andrew Walden

 

Growing most potent strains of marijuana is now a crime again under newly enacted county ordinances on Kauai and the Big Island. If Maui County follows suit and passes a proposed ordinance modeled on the Kauai law, marijuana growers will be subject to stiff new penalties there as well. The changes are due to the recent enactment of anti-GMO legislation by county councils. In all three anti-GMO bills, “gene doubling” is expressly identified as a form of genetic modification subject to the law. The most potent forms of marijuana are modified by a primitive genetic modification technique which involves soaking the seeds in colchicine—a carcinogenic derivative of crocus bulbs--until the DNA doubles (or even quadruples) which in turn doubles or quadruples the production of THC. This method produces the highest potency marijuana varieties and the seeds commonly sold by online vendors.

 

In Kauai County, (and potentially Maui County) marijuana growers raising GMO varieties of marijuana are required to register “no later than sixty (60) days following the end of each calendar year” -- March 2, 2014. They must report “a general description of each genetically modified organism, a general description of the geographic location including at minimum the Tax Map Key and ahupua’a where each genetically modified organism is being grown or developed, and dates that each genetically modified organism was initially introduced to the land in question.”

 

Failure to report the site of GMO marijuana grow op(s) will result in ”a civil fine of $10,000-$25,000 per day, per violation” and “shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than two-thousand dollars ($2,000.00), or imprisoned not more than one (1) year, or both, for each offense. The continuance of any violation after conviction shall be deemed a new criminal offense for each day that the violation or violations continue.”

 

Note that the $10,000 per day fine is a mandatory daily minimum—40 days of violations on one TMK results in a minimum of $400K or a maximum of $1,000,000 in fines—usually enough to justify seizing a grower’s house and land.

 

The only way marijuana growers can avoid these fines is to register the location and ownership of their grow-ops.

 

In Hawaii County anti-GMO Bill 113 became effective with Mayor Billy Kenoi’s signature December 5, 2013. Its requirements are different than the law on Kauai and the bill proposed for Maui. For instance “no person shall knowingly engage in the open air cultivation, propagation, development, or testing of genetically engineered crops or plants.” This prohibits all outdoor grow-ops including those operating within medical marijuana limits.

 

Indoor grow-ops on the Big Island will be subject to registration requirements or a $1000 per day fine effective March 5, 2014:

 

 

“All persons engaged in any form of cultivation, propagation, development, or indoor testing of genetically engineered crops or plants of any kind shall register annually beginning within ninety days of the effective date of this article, and shall pay an annual registration fee of $100 per location….

 

“Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of a violation, and upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to a fine of up to $ 1,000 for each separate violation. The person shall be deemed to be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day a violation of this article is committed, continued, or permitted for each location. To the extent permitted by law, the person found in violation of this article shall also be responsible for all costs of investigation and testing, as well as for court costs, including but not limited to witness fees and witness expenses.”

 

For police departments and prosecutors, the challenge will be distinguishing genetically modified marijuana while in the field. Fortunately, there are simple guidelines available such as this one which comes from a respected Canadian mail order seed vendor:

 

Polyploid Traits (Click trait for image):

◾Ducksfoot

◾Four sets of leaves at the nodes

◾Stretched (doubled) flowers

◾Dark green leaves

◾Double bud sites

◾Heavy feeder

◾High water consumption

◾Thick meristem

◾Pistil discoloration (pink pistils under black light)

◾Extreme potency

◾Vigour and extra growth on first generation

 

VIDEO: Every strain shown in this video is GMO. <iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uI41d-bDjWk"frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

 

 

This information provides police departments with a handy way to identify suspected GMO strains of marijuana in the field, seize them and send the plant material for genetic testing to confirm the presence of illegal polyploid characteristics. Fines could also be calculated based on expert testimony about the age of the plant, racking up between $400,000 and $1,000,000 in fines for a single mature 40-day old plant (up to $40,000 fine on the Big Island) without having to conduct 40 days of surveillance.

[trichcycler]

 

Plant Patents on Common Vegetables

 

 

 

 

Frank Morton

 

What We Are Up Against

 

Holy Crap! You Can Patent That!?

 

I remember the first time I saw the words 'Utility Patent Applied For' in a seed catalog description. It was 2008. We had just filed court papers to try to keep GE sugar beet seed production out of the Willamette Valley, and now seed patents had sprouted up in familiar ground. I was stunned. A patent on what? This was not a Monsanto, Dupont, or Syngenta catalog, this wasn't GE corn or soy being described—this was the catalog I had been ordering seed from since I began farming. This was LETTUCE being described. The time had arrived that only the most paranoid among us would have anticipated in 1980, when I made my first seed order from this catalog, which included a small booklet published by the catalog founder about saving one's own seed. It was the first seed saving book I ever read. Now, 'Utility Patent Granted.' Nobody would be saving seed from these lettuces...

 

How times have changed. In 1980 there were no patents on life—living organisms were specifically excluded from patent protection at the US Patent Office. The advent of bioengineering changed that by creating a Supreme Court case around whether a gene insertion into a bacterium (to clean up oil spills, the patent proposed) constituted a novel invention. Well, Yes—the Supreme Court decided that moving genes from one unrelated species to another constituted a feat of engineering, and deserved the stamp of novelty as much as any invention. This decision broke the ice for intellectual property incursion into the life sciences, and neither medicine nor agriculture have been the same since.

 

In 1980 there were two ways to get proprietary rights on plant innovations. Since 1930 a breeder could get a US Plant Patent on trees, roses, fruits, and other perennials that are propagated by cuttings and other clonal methods. The US Congress specifically excluded potatoes (all tubers, in fact) and all seed propagated plants from patent protection. In 1961, European governments and seed interests succeeded in creating an international agreement (UPOV) that allowed for the first intellectual property (IP) rights on plant varieties, but allowed for a “breeder's exemption,” meaning that protected varieties were still available for anyone to use for breeding purposes. This assured that companies would be able to control the sale of seed varieties that arose from their breeding and development investments, but society would continue to benefit from new crop innovation, much of which originated in publicly funded universities and public breeding programs worldwide. The US created its own Plant Variety Protection Act in 1970, the first protection of seed-propagated plants recognized by US law. This IP protection also contained a breeder's exemption, allowing for ongoing breeding and research with PVP varieties, but also a “farmers exemption,” allowing farmers to save seed for replanting, and to sell to neighbors—the so called “brown bag exemption” (seed could be sold in unprinted bags).

 

The Europeans have never allowed the farmer exemption, and have actually maintained prohibitions on the growing or sale of “unauthorized varieties” (any variety not recognized as worthy for inclusion on an official “white list”). If you can imagine commercial horticulture without heirloom varieties and seed saving gardeners and farmers, that's Europe. The US is a freewheeling seed fair compared to the restrictions of the EU, and it has been pointed out to me that Wild Garden Seed could not have been born in Europe—most of our varieties would be illegal. Frenchman Dominique Guillet and his Kokopelli Seed organization have done the most to reverse EU laws against selling unauthorized seeds (mostly by just doing it and confronting the consequences), but it has meant going against the interests of multinational seed corporations and the French government in Court, and even enduring a police raid and confiscation of property. This is an ongoing battle, but at last report, it appeared that restrictions on unauthorized varieties were being overturned, at least to some degree.

 

In 1980, as the first GMO bacterium earned its patented credentials in the Supreme Court, PVP vegetables were just being noticed by seed savers. Horticulture Magazine ran a small article—“What is PVP and Why Are People So Upset About It?” People of the time were used to keeping and selling garden pea seeds through catalogs like Abundant Life Seed Foundation, and here was a new thing called 'Sugarsnap' (PVP) peas—the best thing since sweet corn—and you couldn't sell the seeds without a license from the company that owned the variety. Remember, we weren't yet conditioned to the idea of “ownership of life,” and “the freedom of the commons” was still a persuasive argument. Seeds were considered part of all people's common heritage, and seeds reproduced themselves. Some pretty righteous people were pretty pissed off for a couple of decades. In hindsight and in fact, the PVP concept and practice is similar to a copyright (but infinitely more expensive, since copyright costs nothing), and I have always been able to understand copyright and publishing rights, having been conditioned to it. PVP covers a complete work of the breeding art—a variety of PVP lettuce is like a finished poem. Anyone can enjoy it, reproduce it for themselves and their friends by voice or copying machine, use it as inspiration, or rearrange the words or letters—but to publish it, sell it, put it on a greeting card, requires permission (maybe money), for 20 years from the time of introduction. This was still not a popular argument in organic grower circles in 2000, but it was made.

 

The Rise Of Utility Patenting In Plants

 

A glyphosate-resistant soybean was the first food crop to be genetically engineered, and thereby, in 1985, became the first plant candidate for a utility patent from the US Patent Office. Using the same logic, that GE = Novel Invention, the Patent Office continued to grant plant patents for GE herbicide resistance and Bt-traits in corn, cotton, soy, and canola at an increasing rate throughout the next 20 years. Quietly though, a new trend began with a vaguely appreciated 2001 US Court decision (J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred) that proposed that conventionally bred varieties were candidates for utility patent protection, and furthermore, the traits of conventionally bred plants were candidates for patenting if they were novel. The complex problem of defining what a novel trait might (or might not) be apparently did not fall upon the Court, and the ambiguity of this has begun to haunt the claims of patents on plants.

 

In a mental act of denial, I have never fully let the implications of this decision sink in. It is too discouraging to consider for too long at one stretch. The implication of the J.E.M. decision is that every thing, every trait, every breeding technique, that has a utility patent on it is removed from the common breeding pool of agriculture for the duration of the patent. Not just whole varieties, but significant traits, like insect and disease resistance, yield, tolerance to various environmental stresses, colors, leaf shapes and sizes. Utility patented plants, their pollen, genes, or any aspect of the plant, may not be used for any purpose at all (breeding, research, trade, personal use, etc.) without the express permission of the patent holder. This means that useful, perhaps critical, innovations in plant breeding and research (resistance to important pests and diseases, for example), can be monopolized by single parties for 20 years. The consequences of this were more obvious to breeders than to IP lawyers, and complaints have never ceased.

 

A small group of corporations control the largest portion of the world's utility patents on plants, and there are big misunderstandings between these players and the public about exactly what these patents cover, and to what extent the bewildering flurry of claims are overreaching rather than legitimate. The worldwide coalition, No Patents On Seeds, reports on several EU Patent Court cases involving challenges to patent applications from public NGOs as well as competitive corporate interests. The grounds for challenge include lack of novelty, lack of originality in the claims, claims made on what are essentially biological processes, the existence of prior art, etc. The outcomes of some court cases have not been a comfort to the challengers, with the courts finding novelty, originality, and invention where challengers did not. Though limiting the reach of some outrageous claims, EU Courts have allowed patents on disease and insect resistance to stand.

 

But what does it even mean when Syngenta makes a patent claim for “pleasant taste” in a conventionally bred melon? Isn't this what all melon varieties make some claim to possess? Why is such a patent worth the cost? Can it keep others from describing their melons as “pleasant tasting?” At some point such patents bring to mind Apple's claim that a rectangle with rounded corners is a novel, patentable, design element. Most people laugh at the idea, but Samsung is paying big money over it after a US Court agreed with Apple. It strikes most plant breeders as obvious that beneficial traits like pest and stress resistance, good flavor and bright colors, high nutrition and glossy leaves, would be combined (their traits would be “stacked”) to create ever more desirable varieties of produce. I am not able to understand, and I have not been able to find a written explanation, why such products of the breeding process are not “obvious to anyone practiced in the art.” Nor can I understand how plant breeding can proceed when I read patent after patent claiming that stacked traits for resistance, color, shape, size, earliness, fruit pH, taste, and brix—as well as the fundamental methods of the breeding process—are claims for novelty, uniqueness, and utility. You may as well patent products that people will swallow after chewing. In fact, that appears to be the bottom line.

 

Recently, the European Union and its major seed companies seem to have realized that the seed patenting laws that were intended to spur innovation by promising returns on investment in breeding, have instead thrown up barricades to innovation by creating the threat of lawsuits over claims on traits and methods of breeding. The companies themselves are not certain what they own, and they realize that lawsuits over trait infringements could cost more than the patents are worth. Indeed, one source estimates that the average cost of challenging utility patents is $500,000, and the average cost to manage cross licensing agreements between multiple patent holders (in order to allow a challengable breeding project to begin) is $100,000. That is a lot of lettuce. Unlike patents on row crops like corn and soy, the costs of patents and litigation on horticultural seed (vegetables, flowers) are less likely to be justified by the crop base of any one variety. The costs are greater than the potential profits. As a result, seed patent holders in Europe have recently suggested offering breeders rights exemptions to one another, reducing the reach of their claims over a noodle pile of counter-claims, and reducing the effect of the utility patent on conventional plants to what the international varietal protection agreements already do. This appears to be an admission that utility patents are not an appropriate means for managing intellectual property rights on plants.

[Wild Bill]

Fortunately, there are simple guidelines available such as this one which comes from a respected Canadian mail order seed vendor:

 

Polyploid Traits (Click trait for image):

◾Ducksfoot

◾Four sets of leaves at the nodes

◾Stretched (doubled) flowers

◾Dark green leaves

◾Double bud sites

◾Heavy feeder

◾High water consumption

◾Thick meristem

◾Pistil discoloration (pink pistils under black light)

◾Extreme potency

◾Vigour and extra growth on first generation

 

VIDEO: Every strain shown in this video is GMO.

 

Who is the respected Canadian vender that claims polyploid traits are proof of genetic modification? Polyploid simply means that there are two sets of chromosomes, a naturally occurring phenomenon.

 

Who makes the claim that every strain in the video is genetically modified? I've never heard of any commercially available cannabis strain advertised as GMO.

 

Sounds like more government/industrial BS.

[trichcycler]

could be, who really knows. If a conspiracy turns out to be true, does it remain a conspiracy? I don't know the author, nor do I guarantee the information contained within to be true. If there are patents demonstrating the ability to manipulate the cannabis genome, surely someone is profiting with the discovery, or about to.

 

Polyploidy is a genetic modification, whether naturally occurring or not. Even molds and mildews, virus, bacteria can cause genetic modifications, especially when purposefully applied.

 

genetically modified seeds are offered commercially. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=genetically+modified+cannabis+seeds+for+sale

[trichcycler]

Dutch Passion is not involved with Genetically engineerd Cannabis, or planning to get involved with GMO crops. This article only discusses the subject.

 

All Dutch Passion seeds are 100% natural and free from any type of genetic engineering.

 

 

 

Genetic engineering is the manipulation of the genetic code (or ‘genome’), it can be done to either plants or animals. Mice were the first to get their DNA meddled with back in the 70’s. The first plants were modified in the 1990’s and since then we have learned a great deal about tinkering with the genome to enhance certain plant qualities. Food crops are now routinely genetically modified to yield better, be drought resistant, to be insect and disease resistant etc. Genetically modified (‘GM’) Soybean, corn and many other crops are now grown all over the world. The genie is out of the bottle.

 

 

 

Just what could be achieved if cannabis could be genetically modified? Who would have the cash to do such a thing…and why?

 

The first people I expect to create GM cannabis are the pharmaceutical companies, they have the cash to make it happen. They are on the crest of a wave as medical marijuana begins to enter mainstream medicine. At the moment this market has an annual value worth just tens of €millions but this market will grow exponentially, in a few years I expect the pharmaceutical market for cannabis medicines will be worth literally €billions as cannabis starts finding its way into mainstream treatment for pain relief, MS, epilepsy, sleep problems, depression, cancer treatment etc etc. GM cannabis could be created to grow into large ‘tree’ style plants that may be able to yield insane harvest quantities perhaps over several years. The mind boggles. Yet realistically GM cannabis will be tried if, and when, the pharmaceutical companies start realising the true financial pharmaceutical potential for ganja.

 

 

Mazar, grown outdoors in soil filled containers in the Czech Republic from 20th April to 15th November 2010 using feminised seed. Superb specimens. Can genetically modified weed be any better than the natural version ?

 

I also suspect that by manipulating individual genes and specific parts of the plant DNA, cannabis could be genetically modified in a way which would selectively favour production of certain cannabinoid compounds. Natural marijuana produces over 85 different cannabinoid compounds of which THC is the most abundant. Cannabinoids are the only compounds that work in conjunction with the human cannabinoid receptors. Sooner or later people will understand the precise role of each of the cannabinoid family and that will allow a second generation of cannabis medicines to be created. These they will use selective groups of cannabinoids or even individual ones, for highly specific medical purposes. Certain medicines may be more effective with plenty of cannabinoid CBN and CBD enrichment, who knows. Perhaps they will remove the THC so you can’t get a pleasant buzz from it.

 

The pharmaceutical companies will feel they have to convince everyone that the benefits of their particular marijuana medicine can’t be achieved with normal weed. Some of the drug companies will shy away from involvement fearing that medical marijuana may actually cut company profits as it eats into existing premium-priced medicine markets. But ignoring a new emerging market is never a smart way to deal with it in a free market economy. ‘Sooner or later someone will exploit and dominate the medical marijuana market so it may as well be us’, the pharma companies will conclude. By embracing medical marijuana they can grow their own raw materials and use the various active ingredients in different combinations for different medicines. It is the ultimate business model, one raw ingredient that is easy and cheap to farm and multiple medical products, all with very few costs.

 

Personally I expect the pharmaceutical companies will invest heavily to genetically engineer a cannabis strain that yields ultra high levels of the whole spectrum of cannabinoid chemicals. The aim will be to extract and isolate them into individual cannabinoids on an industrial scale using thousands of tons of bud. Once individual cannabinoids are isolated I expect they will find their way into pills for very specific medical purposes. This is the best way for pharma companies to remove the ‘threat’ of homegrown weed, they will simply say that their preparations are more effective because they are more sophisticated. Of course not everyone will believe them, but they will become rich enough anyway. Perhaps a few seeds or cuttings of these GM strains will find their way back to Amsterdam…..just imagine the great hybrid strains!

 

In the meantime the traditional cannabis seed breeders will continue to make the most useful contributions to the medical marijuana movement by working with grow cooperatives. I am personally sure all marijuana is medically effective, yet there are some strains that are often better known by the medical marijuana users. In Dutch Passions case, it is often strains like Ortega, Mazar, Strawberry Cough which are perhaps mentioned most frequently by med users.

 

So perhaps we will see genetically modified cannabis in the not-too-distant future. I think it will take 5 years before they build up the courage to announce plans to try it, and another 5 years before they show us the results. I am sure the medical marijuana movement will be involved in a very big way, but have you ever wondered what the implications and experiences might be for the recreational stoner? Could GM cannabis give you radically different weed to that which we enjoy today? Maybe weed that doesn’t stink when you grow it, or weed with a quite different buzz? As crazy as these questions seem, I reckon one day very soon they will be asked for real.

 

Dutch Joe

2011

 

gmo doesn't mean its better, or stronger, or taste different or even is noticeable. A small manipulation could take place just to cinch the patent issues. More complex manipulations are taking place, just like in corn, wheat, apples, oranges, lemons, tomatoes, beans, ........Cannabis can be manipulated to produce a myriad of other medicines, fuels, fibers, light, and more perhaps. I have seen transgenic plants "programmed" for producing light, chemicals, fuels, medicines, and toxins. Its not a matter of when will it happen with cannabis, its more like when will we know about it I think

[trichcycler]

Scientists to Produce THC in Yeast

 

 

By Mike Adams · Wed Jul 16, 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RSS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientists are working to develop an innovative new method for effectively producing the primary compounds of marijuana without being forced to endure the lengthy cultivation process -- a manner by which they hope to genetically engineer cannabinoids using yeast.

 

The mad science minds of Hyasynth Bio, a newly formed biotech firm in Ireland, are currently experimenting with the production of the cannabinoids THC and CBD by transplanting the genetic code into yeast. Through this process, researchers believe they will be able to rapidly grow medical-grade marijuana in a laboratory setting and potentially eliminate the need for traditional grow houses.

 

"Right now, growing medical marijuana is expensive and it's heavily regulated as well. It's slow to grow, you've got to go through several different strains before you get a stable blend," said Sarah Choukah, the CEO of Hyasynth Bio, in a recent interview with VICE. "We're thinking to bypass all this, to make it quick to grow, we can develop pot from technology that could give us customizable blends of yeast."

 

Over a decade ago, the concept of engineering cannabinoids by transferring DNA to other organisms was discussed in detail in an article by Ed Rosenthal entitled “Can Another Plant Be Made to Contain THC?” In the piece, Rosenthal points out of a very realistic concern when considering the potential of marketing transgenic cannabis: marijuana purists are not likely to have any interest in a product that has been genetically engineered.

 

And while Rosenthal’s argument is certainly valid, researchers at Hyasynth Bio say their yeast weed concept is not for the average marijuana user. According to the lab’s website, its primary goal is to produce THC and CBD strains in a matter of days as opposed to waiting for plants to mature, while, at the same time, providing fast and effective medicine for patients suffering from conditions including epilepsy, Multiple Sclerosis and chronic pain.

 

Researchers admit their yeast-based marijuana project is something that scientists have been dabbling in for several years, but due to the legalities of marijuana research, those efforts never came to fruition. According to Choukah, this is the primary reason her team has decided to set their sights on the medical side of the industry. Yet, she believes they will eventually explore the possibility of getting involved with the recreational market.

 

Hyasynth Bio is expected to present their findings next month at a demonstration in Dublin

http://www.hightimes.com/read/scientists-produce-thc-yeast

If we're just now hearing about this now I wonder how long its been hidden

[trichcycler]

Scientists to Produce THC in Yeast

 

 

By Mike Adams · Wed Jul 16, 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RSS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientists are working to develop an innovative new method for effectively producing the primary compounds of marijuana without being forced to endure the lengthy cultivation process -- a manner by which they hope to genetically engineer cannabinoids using yeast.

 

The mad science minds of Hyasynth Bio, a newly formed biotech firm in Ireland, are currently experimenting with the production of the cannabinoids THC and CBD by transplanting the genetic code into yeast. Through this process, researchers believe they will be able to rapidly grow medical-grade marijuana in a laboratory setting and potentially eliminate the need for traditional grow houses.

 

"Right now, growing medical marijuana is expensive and it's heavily regulated as well. It's slow to grow, you've got to go through several different strains before you get a stable blend," said Sarah Choukah, the CEO of Hyasynth Bio, in a recent interview with VICE. "We're thinking to bypass all this, to make it quick to grow, we can develop pot from technology that could give us customizable blends of yeast."

 

Over a decade ago, the concept of engineering cannabinoids by transferring DNA to other organisms was discussed in detail in an article by Ed Rosenthal entitled “Can Another Plant Be Made to Contain THC?” In the piece, Rosenthal points out of a very realistic concern when considering the potential of marketing transgenic cannabis: marijuana purists are not likely to have any interest in a product that has been genetically engineered.

 

And while Rosenthal’s argument is certainly valid, researchers at Hyasynth Bio say their yeast weed concept is not for the average marijuana user. According to the lab’s website, its primary goal is to produce THC and CBD strains in a matter of days as opposed to waiting for plants to mature, while, at the same time, providing fast and effective medicine for patients suffering from conditions including epilepsy, Multiple Sclerosis and chronic pain.

 

Researchers admit their yeast-based marijuana project is something that scientists have been dabbling in for several years, but due to the legalities of marijuana research, those efforts never came to fruition. According to Choukah, this is the primary reason her team has decided to set their sights on the medical side of the industry. Yet, she believes they will eventually explore the possibility of getting involved with the recreational market.

 

Hyasynth Bio is expected to present their findings next month at a demonstration in Dublin

http://www.hightimes.com/read/scientists-produce-thc-yeast

If we're just now hearing about this now I wonder how long its been hidden