Avoiding GMO strains

unknown1231

Well-Known Member
Hey All,

Looking at strains online I see a lot that are patented or trademarked... the last time I checked you can only patent or trademark a strain when you genetically modify it. There is a lot of discussions right now on GMO (genetically modified) foods potentially being harmful to humans when consumed.

Does anyone know which strains out there are GMO? Thoughts on which ones are not GMO?

Maybe all the blind mixing of different strains makes it impossible to know for sure which strains are GMO and which are not?
 
I had a strain once, it was a freebee seed, that was labeled by the site that i bought it from as coming from a GMO daddy plant. Afghan Kush Special. It was really stinky and got you really high, but i didn't clone it and keep it because of the GMO daddy.
 
I'm don't think there are ANY truly GMO cannabis plants, at least none that you would consider buying for "medical" effect.

So far as I know, none of the well-known commercial breeders use transgenic technology. All breeding is done the "old fashioned" way by crosses and selection.

Now, there probably are some lines that have been made artificially polyploid with colchicine or a similar agent, but these plants don't contain any genetic material that wasn't there before, let alone any from other species/organisms , and polyploidy really isn't what most people mean by "GMO".
 
the last time I checked you can only patent or trademark a strain when you genetically modify it.

Who did you "check" with? (That's a rhetorical question, since its plain you don't really know what you're talking about here).

Apart from a small number of commercial hemp lines, it wouldn't make sense to patent any commercial drug cannabis strain, since drug-type cannabis is illegal mostly everywhere, since sales occur by small vendors on the black market and across jurisdictional boundaries, and enforcement of such a patent would be effectively impossible.

Lets say I rip off your "Unknown1231" strain, rename it "Jogro Gold" and sell it to ceedbanks from my shack in Spain. How are you ever going to know, let alone prove it, let alone find me (in another country) and compel me to stop?

Drug cannabis aside, its certainly possible to patent NON-genetically modified uniquely bred plants via a sort of limited patent that gives a breeder "plant breeder rights". Again, not much point doing that in a black-market driven enterprise.

Its certainly possible to trademark the *NAME* of a strain, at least in some jurisdictions, though there is absolutely no requirement for said strain to be genetically modified. Again, see above for reasons why in practice, a trademark isn't all that valuable.

These jurisdictions, by the way, do NOT include within the USA. The US Patent office will not accept trademark registration for cannabis strains:
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/07/marijuana_strain_patents.php
 
I had a strain once, it was a freebee seed, that was labeled by the site that i bought it from as coming from a GMO daddy plant. Afghan Kush Special. It was really stinky and got you really high, but i didn't clone it and keep it because of the GMO daddy.

See above.

Despite the marketing-related claim by the breeder, that plant, Afghan Kush special, isn't really "genetically modified" in the usual sense of the term.

Typically, when people are talking about "genetically modified" organisms, they mean ones that have had novel DNA sequences inserted via molecular techniques. These DNA sequences come either from other organisms via molecular "cut and paste" or may have been designed de-novo in a test tube.

In this case, that isn't true. Assuming the ad copy is even correct (and it well may not be), what the breeder did here was treat ordinary plants with a chemical to prevent mitotic division and increase the number of chromosome copies they have. No new genetic material was introduced, and these sorts of "polyploid" plants do occur in nature. In fact, any grower who has grown enough ce-eds out will have come across natural polyploid plants. These plants are typically larger in size than normal ones, and although some people think they are more potent, I don't believe this to be true.

Polyploid plants are also typically unstable, may be infertile, and may not necessarily pass on the polyploid status to offspring. So even if somewhere along this plants lineage one of its ancestors was polyploid, its improbable that this line still is.

http://www.worldwide-marijuana-seeds.com/products/world-of-seeds-afghan-kush-special

Stabilised male hybrid: POLLEN OBTAINED FROM GENETICALLY MODIFIED PLANTS. Male is obtained from a determined quantity of plants growth with a mitotic inhibitor that gives us polysomic [ie polyploid] plants. This mutant hybrids has been selected and classified with the best properties in order to obtain a new potential genetic in a new cross
Any new hybrid is necessarily a "new potential genetic". . .this is just more ad copy to impress people who don't know anything about genetics.
 
Who did you "check" with? (That's a rhetorical question, since its plain you don't really know what you're talking about here).

Here is just one website talking about that patenting of DNA, can only be done when YOU genetically modify the DNA which then makes it unique and patentable.

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe70s/crops_13.html

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

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml

....as I understand it, you CAN patent smaller sequences of DNA but not the whole genome which means you must transgenically modify a plant in order to patent it.

This would make sense otherwise I could go patent the common tomato plant tomorrow and start suing farmers who are growing my patented tomato plant.
 
There is no such thing as GMO cannabis. GMO is prevalent in cotton, corn, sugar beets. Not weed. And I know about GMO from working at whole foods.
 
Here is just one website talking about that patenting of DNA, can only be done when YOU genetically modify the DNA which then makes it unique and patentable.

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe70s/crops_13.html

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

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml

....as I understand it, you CAN patent smaller sequences of DNA but not the whole genome which means you must transgenically modify a plant in order to patent it.

This would make sense otherwise I could go patent the common tomato plant tomorrow and start suing farmers who are growing my patented tomato plant.

Well, here's the thing. The strains themselves, and their genetic makeup, are not trademarked, or copy-protected in any way. It is the name that is trademarked, and it was a response to the shitty antics of greenhouse seeds and the like. You will not find any breeders that I am aware of genetically modifying cannabis in the ways that they do wheat, corn, and the like. Now whether the government does it or not is an entirely different question.
 
Here are a few articles on GMO Marijuana:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/has-cannabis-been-secretly-modified-_b_1688684.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/16/drugs-drugs

http://farmwars.info/?p=6322

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatche...juana-pot-genetically-modified-drugs-colombia

Now... Technically GMO means the DNA has been spliced (modified) for some particular purpose. It may be a toss up to whether or not they're referring to marijuana that has been bread to be potent OR if they are actually referring to transgenically modified marijuana.
 
Here is just one website talking about that patenting of DNA, can only be done when YOU genetically modify the DNA which then makes it unique and patentable.

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe70s/crops_13.html

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

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml

....as I understand it, you CAN patent smaller sequences of DNA but not the whole genome which means you must transgenically modify a plant in order to patent it.

This would make sense otherwise I could go patent the common tomato plant tomorrow and start suing farmers who are growing my patented tomato plant.

Linking to Wikipedia still doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

Yes, of course some jurisdictions allow you to patent novel DNA sequences. That's not in dispute.

But so far as I know there are no commercial cannabis drug strains that are patented, and that's unlikely to change until/unless large scale commercial cultivation of drug-cannabis is legal. The patent process is lengthy, and expensive, and unless it offers actual protection, there is no point in doing it. (I've already explained why it won't help clandestine drug growers earlier).

Further, patents, by definition, are registered with a government, and publically available; not something that can be kept secret. If any drug strain were patented, its seller would want to tell you that to protect its patent (plus as an ad gimmick).

So, show me the patent. Where is it?

The United States trademark office has specifically prohibited trademarking names of cannabis drug strains.

As to genetic modification, genetically modifying an organism requires a major investment of money and laboratory infrastructure. Its not a "home project" that you can cook up in your closet, nor is it something that drug cultivators can pull off, unless they happen to enlist the help of PhD biologists.
 
The first article is pure speculation by loudmouths with degrees, and effectively worthless. None of the last three provide a scintilla of evidence that any strain of drug cannabis has been genetically modified, and in fact, reading between the lines, it surely appears to me that the "modified" cannabis they're talking about is just an ordinary modern high-potency drug strain, imported into a backwoods area where the locals were used to growing seeded schwagg.

For example, "OG kush" (which is hardly new, and certainly NOT genetically modified in any normal sense of the term) can easily clock in at 18%+ THC. No genetic modification is necessary to get to that level of THC content, and there are probably centuries old Afghani landrace strains that are potentially that potent. As a matter of fact, I think a good Columbian Gold/Santa Marta cut can probably get close to that, making me wonder exactly why it is that these Columbians have never seen super potent pot before.

Maybe its because the "war on drugs" made the Columbians switch from growing cannabis to cocaine in the early 1980s.

One major red flag here is that any story that claims that cannabis today is fifty gazillion times more potent than anything from 20-30 years ago is not only false, but deliberately alarmist. We've been hearing these "pot is stronger than anything before" since the early 1980s, maybe longer. That's what the cannabis prohibitionists ALWAYS say when they want to demonize cannabis. "No, you don't understand, the cannabis today is totally different than the giggle-weed you know from experience is totally harmless".

The fact is that any good grade of hashish is going to be FAR more potent than ANY buds (even the most powerful modern "super" strains), and that hash has been around for literally thousands of years. Hash OIL (at greater than 90% pure refined cannabinoid content) has been around for at least 50-60 years, and it was most certainly available in the 1970s.

So in fact, its demonstrably FALSE that cannabis is stronger today than anything before, and also false that genetic modification is necessary (or even desirable) to create super potent product.

Now... Technically GMO means the DNA has been spliced (modified) for some particular purpose.
No, that's NOT what it means.

Splicing DNA is NOT synonymous with modification.

Also, strictly speaking, splicing isn't necessary to create a genetically modified organism (though in practice it almost always is).

The strict definition of a GMO is an organism that contains a novel DNA sequence introduced via modern biotechnology technique.

Any plant created by old fashioned crossing and breeding of pre-existing ones BY DEFINITION is excluded from the definition of GMO.

Otherwise, EVERY fruit and vegetable on EVERY shelf in EVERY supermarket, and EVERY plant growing in your garden are all "genetically modified", because **NONE** of them are wild cultivars, and *ALL* of them have been selectively bred over centuries by people into modern garden/farm strains.


It may be a toss up to whether or not they're referring to marijuana that has been bread to be potent OR if they are actually referring to transgenically modified marijuana.
Either these growers ARE growing GMO cannabis, or they are NOT growing GMO cannabis, right?

This is not a "toss up", you simply don't know which is correct.

Again, barring actual evidence to the contrary, it seems plain to me that the "GMO" strain referred to in those junk articles is just conventional high potency modern drug cannabis. There is no need to genetically modify ANYTHING to get to 18% THC, and its even possible to get quite a bit higher than that.

Lets put the "common sense" hat on for a second.

If GMO cannabis actually existed, and is more potent than anything else around, why does it only exist in some backwoods part of Columbia? How come its not sold in Dutch coffeehouses, or in the USA (where drug cannabis is legal in various states). Why aren't ceeds of it sold on "Attitude Ceedbank"?

Answer: There is no "GMO" cannabis, only alarmist stories by authors who don't understand what's really going on, or who don't care.
 
A footnote from one of the above articles, effectively debunking the premise that there is "genetically modified" cannabis. Apparently, that was just a translation error:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/16/drugs-drugs

This article was amended on 18 October 2011. The first paragraph of the original article, as translated from the French, referred to "genetically modified" cannabis. The Guardian understands the cultivation of stronger forms of cannabis as described in the article would be the result of methods such as selective breeding. The reference to genetically modified cannabis in the article, as well as in our headline, has therefore been removed. A quote by Superintendent François Thierry in the third paragraph has been replaced with reported speech to convey his main point about an increase in the potency of cannabis — this is to avoid an ambiguity in the original quote that referred also to synthetic cannabis (though rendered by the Guardian as GM cannabis), which contains no THC. The sentence on how the Dutch may consider reclassifying cannabis has been amended to clarify that this relates to the strongest concentrations of cannabis.
 
Back
Top